contempt hearing in New York

2013Notably, at the contempt hearing, the defendant conceded that he received the January 2010 order and failed to deposit any money with the plaintiff’s attorney pursuant to the order; these concessions established his knowing disobedience of the order (see Bais Yoel Ohel Feige v Congregation Yetev Lev D’Satmar of Kiryas Joel, Inc., 78 AD3d at 626-627; Hinkson v Daughtry-Hinkson, 31 AD3d at 608 ; Goldsmith v Goldsmith, 261 AD2d at 577 ).

2013Notably, at the contempt hearing, the defendant conceded that he received the January 2010 order and failed to deposit any money with the plaintiff’s attorney pursuant to the order; these concessions established his knowing disobedience of the order (see Bais Yoel Ohel Feige v Congregation Yetev Lev D’Satmar of Kiryas Joel, Inc., 78 AD3d at 626-627; Hinkson v Daughtry-Hinkson, 31 AD3d at 608 ; Goldsmith v Goldsmith, 261 AD2d at 577 ).

2013There is a difference (compare United States v Ry- lander, 460 US at 760 [incarceration was properly ordered for failure to comply with court order to produce records and the failure to adduce any evidence of an inability to comply, not for defendant’s refusal to testify], with United States v Edgerton, 734 F2d 913, 918, 922 [1984] [court improperly imposed the sanction of incarceration with the opportunity to purge contempt by answering questions to which the party validly invoked the privilege against self-incrimination], and Matter of County of Orange v Rodriguez, 283 AD2d 494 [2001] [court

2013There is a difference (compare United States v Ry- lander, 460 US at 760 [incarceration was properly ordered for failure to comply with court order to produce records and the failure to adduce any evidence of an inability to comply, not for defendant’s refusal to testify], with United States v Edgerton, 734 F2d 913, 918, 922 [1984] [court improperly imposed the sanction of incarceration with the opportunity to purge contempt by answering questions to which the party validly invoked the privilege against self-incrimination], and Matter of County of Orange v Rodriguez, 283 AD2d 494 [2001] [court

2022We similarly conclude that the court's determination following the contempt hearing to modify the custody arrangement by assigning the parents zones of interest that, inter alia, granted the father final decision-making authority "for all matters involving the [children's] sports, extracurriculars (including extracurriculars sponsored or associated with the children's school)[,] and employment" is not "supported by a sound and substantial basis in the record" ( Matter of Delgado v Frias , 92 AD3d 1245, 1245 [4th Dept 2012]; cf. Matter of Andross v Aiello , 183 AD3d 1266, 1267 [4th Dept 2020];

2022We similarly conclude that the court's determination following the contempt hearing to modify the custody arrangement by assigning the parents zones of interest that, inter alia, granted the father final decision-making authority "for all matters involving the [children's] sports, extracurriculars (including extracurriculars sponsored or associated with the children's school)[,] and employment" is not "supported by a sound and substantial basis in the record" ( Matter of Delgado v Frias , 92 AD3d 1245, 1245 [4th Dept 2012]; cf. Matter of Andross v Aiello , 183 AD3d 1266, 1267 [4th Dept 2020];

2022We similarly conclude that the court's determination following the contempt hearing to modify the custody arrangement by assigning the parents zones of interest that, inter alia, granted the father final decision-making authority "for all matters involving the [children's] sports, extracurriculars (including extracurriculars sponsored or associated with the children's school)[,] and employment" is not "supported by a sound and substantial basis in the record" ( Matter of Delgado v Frias , 92 AD3d 1245, 1245 [4th Dept 2012]; cf. Matter of Andross v Aiello , 183 AD3d 1266, 1267 [4th Dept 2020];

2022With respect to the imposition of the court's house rules on the mother and the children, even assuming, arguendo, that the court had the authority to impose such rules ( cf. Ritchie v Ritchie , 184 AD3d 1113, 1115 [4th Dept 2020]), we conclude that the record fails to demonstrate that the imposition of the house rules in this case was in the children's best interests.

2021Green v Green , 288 AD2d 436, 437 [2d Dept 2001]).

2015The defendant was properly held in civil contempt based on clear and convincing evidence that he disobeyed the lawful judgment and orders of the Supreme Court of which he had knowledge, and that the plaintiff was prejudiced by his contemptuous conduct (see El-Dehdan v El-Dehdan, 114 AD3d 4, 16 [2013]).

2015In our view, these instructions, which are presumed to have been followed (People v Morris, 21 NY3d 588, 598 [2013]; People v Davis, 58 NY2d 1102, 1104 [1983]; People v Harris, 117 AD3d 847, 855 [2014]), minimized any prejudice resulting from the court’s reference to a contempt hearing.

2015In our view, these instructions, which are presumed to have been followed (People v Morris, 21 NY3d 588, 598 [2013]; People v Davis, 58 NY2d 1102, 1104 [1983]; People v Harris, 117 AD3d 847, 855 [2014]), minimized any prejudice resulting from the court’s reference to a contempt hearing.

2015In our view, these instructions, which are presumed to have been followed (People v Morris, 21 NY3d 588, 598 [2013]; People v Davis, 58 NY2d 1102, 1104 [1983]; People v Harris, 117 AD3d 847, 855 [2014]), minimized any prejudice resulting from the court’s reference to a contempt hearing.

2014Under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court properly exercised its discretion in vacating, in the interest of justice, its prior determination, made upon the defendant’s failure to appear at the contempt hearing, that the defendant’s conduct was willful, since, among other things, the sales of the taxi medallions and the Woodside property were delayed, in part, for reasons outside the defendant’s control (see Woodson v Mendon Leasing Corp., 100 NY2d 62, 68 [2003]).

2010The plaintiffs claim that the defendants violated a prior court order with respect to, inter alia, their alleged interference with booking a cruise on a ship was “completely without merit” and could not be supported by any “reasonable argument” or existing law (see Matter of Tercjak v Tercjak, 49 AD3d 773, 773-774 [2008]; Kucker v Kaminsky & Rich, 7 AD3d 491, 492 [2004]).

2010The plaintiffs claim that the defendants violated a prior court order with respect to, inter alia, their alleged interference with booking a cruise on a ship was “completely without merit” and could not be supported by any “reasonable argument” or existing law (see Matter of Tercjak v Tercjak, 49 AD3d 773, 773-774 [2008]; Kucker v Kaminsky & Rich, 7 AD3d 491, 492 [2004]).

2009(People v Konieczny, 2 NY3d 569, 573, 577 [2004].) In addition, a contempt violation generally requires proof that on a particular date, a court issued a lawful order that is clear, definite, and in effect.

2009(Matter of Holtzman v Beatty, 97 AD2d 79, 82 [2d Dept 1983] [“In the absence of a specific valid order that has been disobeyed, there can be no contempt”]; Matter of McCormick v Axelrod, 59 NY2d 574, 583 [1983].) The Court of Appeals has also made clear that in order to support an allegation that an order of protection was in fact in effect, the best practice is for the People to attach a copy of the order to the accusatory instrument.

2009(Matter of Holtzman v Beatty, 97 AD2d 79, 82 [2d Dept 1983] [“In the absence of a specific valid order that has been disobeyed, there can be no contempt”]; Matter of McCormick v Axelrod, 59 NY2d 574, 583 [1983].) The Court of Appeals has also made clear that in order to support an allegation that an order of protection was in fact in effect, the best practice is for the People to attach a copy of the order to the accusatory instrument.