willfulness violation in New York

2024Apart from the statute, this Court has not imposed a willfulness requirement for civil contempt."); see also Coward v Biddle , 210 AD3d 1083, 1084 [2nd Dept. 2022]).

2024Apart from the statute, this Court has not imposed a willfulness requirement for civil contempt."); see also Coward v Biddle , 210 AD3d 1083, 1084 [2nd Dept. 2022]).

2024The January 26, 2024 Order is Not Clear and Unequivocal Notwithstanding the fact that willfulness need not be proven, respondent does not show each element of civil contempt by clear and convincing evidence. ( see El—Dehdan v. El—Dehdan , 114 AD3d 4 , 10—11 [2nd Dept. 2013], aff'd 26 NY3d 19, 19 [2015]) (standard of proof for civil contempt is clear and convincing evidence)).

2024The January 26, 2024 Order is Not Clear and Unequivocal Notwithstanding the fact that willfulness need not be proven, respondent does not show each element of civil contempt by clear and convincing evidence. ( see El—Dehdan v. El—Dehdan , 114 AD3d 4 , 10—11 [2nd Dept. 2013], aff'd 26 NY3d 19, 19 [2015]) (standard of proof for civil contempt is clear and convincing evidence)).

2022Family Court also appropriately considered the parties' positions and actions during the litigation, finding that , although the willfulness hearing lasted multiple appearances and involved voluminous records, the mother's prima facie case was completed in one day, while the remaining dates were devoted to the father's [*2]proof ( see Matter of Herschebein v Herschbein , 308 AD2d 585, 585 [2d Dept 2003]).

2022Family Court also appropriately considered the parties' positions and actions during the litigation, finding that , although the willfulness hearing lasted multiple appearances and involved voluminous records, the mother's prima facie case was completed in one day, while the remaining dates were devoted to the father's [*2]proof ( see Matter of Herschebein v Herschbein , 308 AD2d 585, 585 [2d Dept 2003]).

2013RSL (Administrative Code of City of NY) § 26-516 (a) states that if DHCR finds that an owner has collected rent in excess of that authorized by the statute, the owner “shall be liable to the tenant for a penalty equal to three times the amount of such overcharge.” While one third of the award constitutes compensation for actual damages, the remaining two-thirds serves to punish the defendant on account of the willfulness of the violation, acting as a deterrent {see Sperry v Crompton Corp., 8 NY3d 204, 212-213 [2007]).

2013RSL (Administrative Code of City of NY) § 26-516 (a) states that if DHCR finds that an owner has collected rent in excess of that authorized by the statute, the owner “shall be liable to the tenant for a penalty equal to three times the amount of such overcharge.” While one third of the award constitutes compensation for actual damages, the remaining two-thirds serves to punish the defendant on account of the willfulness of the violation, acting as a deterrent {see Sperry v Crompton Corp., 8 NY3d 204, 212-213 [2007]).

2013As noted by the Court of Appeals, “These provisions are designed to discourage violations of the Rent Stabilization Law” (Mohassel v Fenwick, 5 NY3d 44, 50 [2005]).

2013As noted by the Court of Appeals, “These provisions are designed to discourage violations of the Rent Stabilization Law” (Mohassel v Fenwick, 5 NY3d 44, 50 [2005]).

2024Moving on, petitioner argues that revocation of its certificate of authority violated its due process rights, in that it did not receive adequate notice that the potential penalties for noncompliance could include revocation. "[D]ue process requires that when a State seeks to terminate an interest . . . , it must afford notice and opportunity for hearing appropriate to the nature of the case before the termination becomes effective" ( Bell v Burson , 402 US 535, 542 [1971] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]).[*3]"It is well settled that the requirements of due process are satisfie

2024Moving on, petitioner argues that revocation of its certificate of authority violated its due process rights, in that it did not receive adequate notice that the potential penalties for noncompliance could include revocation. "[D]ue process requires that when a State seeks to terminate an interest . . . , it must afford notice and opportunity for hearing appropriate to the nature of the case before the termination becomes effective" ( Bell v Burson , 402 US 535, 542 [1971] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]).[*3]"It is well settled that the requirements of due process are satisfie

2009Such a finding, which permits a sanction of up to six months in jail, “requires that competent evidence be presented that establishes the willfulness of the violation by clear and convincing evidence” (Matter of Brittany T, 48 AD3d 995, 997 [2008]; see Matter of Shelby B., 55 AD3d 986, 987 [2008]).

2009Willfulness is not established where a respondent shows that the aspect of the order allegedly violated implicated a monetary expenditure beyond his or her financial resources (cf. Matter of George M., 48 AD3d 926, 928-929 [2008] [finding limited financial resources not an excuse where violated condition had no monetary implications]; Matter of Mitchell v Rockhill, 45 AD3d 1140, 1141 [2007] [inability to pay is a defense to an allegation of willful failure to pay a support order]).

2009Willfulness is not established where a respondent shows that the aspect of the order allegedly violated implicated a monetary expenditure beyond his or her financial resources (cf. Matter of George M., 48 AD3d 926, 928-929 [2008] [finding limited financial resources not an excuse where violated condition had no monetary implications]; Matter of Mitchell v Rockhill, 45 AD3d 1140, 1141 [2007] [inability to pay is a defense to an allegation of willful failure to pay a support order]).

2009Such a finding, which permits a sanction of up to six months in jail, “requires that competent evidence be presented that establishes the willfulness of the violation by clear and convincing evidence” (Matter of Brittany T, 48 AD3d 995, 997 [2008]; see Matter of Shelby B., 55 AD3d 986, 987 [2008]).

2008The specter of such punishment, as well as the potential consequences that such a finding may in fact have for the family unit, requires that competent evidence be presented that establishes the willfulness of the violation by clear and convincing evidence (see Matter of Elizabeth T., 299 AD2d 748, 750-751 [2002], lv dismissed 99 NY2d 610 [2003]; compare Matter of Linda FF., 301 AD2d 887, 889 [2003] [this Court found a willful violation based on “ample evidence”]).

2008The specter of such punishment, as well as the potential consequences that such a finding may in fact have for the family unit, requires that competent evidence be presented that establishes the willfulness of the violation by clear and convincing evidence (see Matter of Elizabeth T., 299 AD2d 748, 750-751 [2002], lv dismissed 99 NY2d 610 [2003]; compare Matter of Linda FF., 301 AD2d 887, 889 [2003] [this Court found a willful violation based on “ample evidence”]).