Brown v. Mudry

55 A.D.3d 828, 866 N.Y.S.2d 301
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedOctober 21, 2008
StatusPublished
Cited by14 cases

This text of 55 A.D.3d 828 (Brown v. Mudry) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Brown v. Mudry, 55 A.D.3d 828, 866 N.Y.S.2d 301 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Opinion

a visitation proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Hoffman, J.), dated September 21, 2007, which dismissed, without a hearing, his motion to adjudicate the respondent in civil contempt of an order of visitation of the same court (Budd, J.) dated April 28, 2006.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The Family Court properly dismissed, without a hearing, the motion to hold the respondent in civil contempt of an order of visitation. The burden is on the moving party to demonstrate, by clear and convincing evidence, that the accused party violated a clear and unequivocal court order which the accused party knew was in effect, thereby prejudicing a right of another party to the litigation (see Judiciary Law § 753 [A] [3]; Matter of McCormick v Axelrod, 59 NY2d 574, 583 [1983]; Matter of Romanello v Davis, 49 AD3d 652, 653 [2008]; Vujovic v Vujovic, [829]*82916 AD3d 490, 491 [2005]; Matter of Laland v Edmond, 13 AD3d 451 [2004]). “A hearing is not mandated in every instance where contempt is sought; it need only be conducted if a factual dispute exists which cannot be resolved on the papers alone” (Jaffe v Jaffe, 44 AD3d 825, 826 [2007] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]).

Here, the petitioner offered no evidentiary support for his allegation that the respondent failed to comply with an order of visitation and therefore failed to raise an issue of fact which would necessitate a hearing (see Jaffe v Jaffe, 44 AD3d at 826; Jafri v Jafri, 292 AD2d 425 [2002]; cf. Lesesne v Lesesne, 292 AD2d 510 [2002]; McKinley v McKinley, 79 AD2d 603 [1980]). Mastro, J.P., Angiolillo, Garni and Eng, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Matter of Koska v. Koska
2024 NY Slip Op 01922 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2024)
Matter of Capruso v. Kubow
2021 NY Slip Op 03453 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2021)
Matter of DeGennaro v. DeGennaro
2018 NY Slip Op 1054 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
Matter of Chichra v. Chichra
2017 NY Slip Op 1851 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
Hartley v. Post
111 A.D.3d 1093 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
Campbell v. Campbell
107 A.D.3d 927 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
Wel-Made Enterprises, Inc. v. Mid Island Redi-Mix, Inc.
81 A.D.3d 717 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
Bais Yoel Ohel Feige v. Congregation Yetev Lev D'Satmar of Kiryas Joel, Inc.
78 A.D.3d 626 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Miller v. Miller
77 A.D.3d 1064 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Jean v. Washington
71 A.D.3d 1145 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
People v. Hooks
64 A.D.3d 1075 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
55 A.D.3d 828, 866 N.Y.S.2d 301, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brown-v-mudry-nyappdiv-2008.