Sheehan v. Sheehan

2 Citing cases

  1. Unger v. Koren Ha

    2025 N.Y. Slip Op. 230 (N.Y. App. Div. 2025)

    "An application to punish a party for civil contempt is addressed to the sound discretion of the court" (Matter of Freeborn v Elco, 188 A.D.3d 677, 680). Here, contrary to the father's contentions, he failed to demonstrate that the mother violated a clear and unequivocal mandate contained in any of the prior orders in question in a manner that was calculated to or actually "defeated, impaired, impeded, or prejudiced his rights" (Matter of Sheehan v Sheehan, 192 A.D.3d 894, 895; see Matter of Marotta v Marotta, 218 A.D.3d 468, 469-470). Accordingly, the Family Court properly denied his violation petitions (see Matter of Kraemer v Strand-O'Shea, 66 A.D.3d 901, 901).

  2. In re Koska

    2024 N.Y. Slip Op. 1922 (N.Y. App. Div. 2024)

    In order to demonstrate the requisite prejudice, the petitioner must show that the respondent's acts or omissions "significantly defeated, impaired, impeded, or prejudiced his [or her] rights" (Matter of Perez v Richmond, 104 A.D.3d 692, 692; see Matter of Tonya YY. v James ZZ., 220 A.D.3d 1149, 1150-1151; Matter of Michael F. [Shreeis J.], 152 A.D.3d 770, 771). Indeed, the violation of a court order, standing alone, is insufficient to punish a party for civil contempt (see Matter of Sheehan v Sheehan, 192 A.D.3d 894, 895). If the petitioner "makes the required showing, the burden shifts to the [respondent] to refute that showing, or to offer evidence of a defense such as an inability to comply with the order" (Matter of Mendoza-Pautrat v Razdan, 160 A.D.3d 963, 964).