Giorgini v. Goldfield

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Giorgini v. Goldfield

22 A.D.3d 800, 803 N.Y.S.2d 155

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedOctober 31, 2005

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 22 A.D.3d 800 (Giorgini v. Goldfield) 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

Giorgini v. Goldfield, 22 A.D.3d 800, 803 N.Y.S.2d 155 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for fraud and conversion of certain insurance commissions, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Molia, J.), dated March 8, 2004, which denied their motion to adjudicate the plaintiff in civil and criminal contempt.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

To succeed on a motion to punish for civil contempt, the moving party must show that the alleged contemnor violated a clear and unequivocal court order and that the violation prejudiced a right of a party to the litigation (see Judiciary Law § 753 [A] [3]; McCain v Dinkins, 84 NY2d 216 [1994]; Matter of McCormick v Axelrod, 59 NY2d 574 [1983]; Matter of CBS Rubbish Removal v Town of Babylon Sanitation Commn., 249 AD2d 541 [1998]). The imposition of punishment for criminal contempt similarly requires a showing that the alleged contemnor violated a clear and unequivocal court order (see Matter of Department of Envtl. Protection of City of N.Y. v Department of Envtl. Conservation of State of N.Y., 70 NY2d 233, 240 [1987]; Matter of McCormick v Axelrod, supra; CBS Rubbish Removal v Town of Babylon Sanitation Commn., supra). Inasmuch as the defendants failed to demonstrate that the plaintiff violated a prior order of the court, the Supreme Court properly denied the defendants’ motion to adjudicate the plaintiff in civil and criminal contempt.

The defendants’ remaining contentions are without merit. S. Miller, J.P., Krausman, Goldstein and Covello, JJ., concur.

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

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for fraud and conversion of certain insurance commissions, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Molia, J.), dated March 8, 2004, which denied their motion to adjudicate the plaintiff in civil and criminal contempt.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

To succeed on a motion to punish for civil contempt, the moving party must show that the alleged contemnor violated a clear and unequivocal court order and that the violation prejudiced a right of a party to the litigation (see Judiciary Law § 753 [A] [3]; McCain v Dinkins, 84 NY2d 216 [1994]; Matter of McCormick v Axelrod, 59 NY2d 574 [1983]; Matter of CBS Rubbish Removal v Town of Babylon Sanitation Commn., 249 AD2d 541 [1998]). The imposition of punishment for criminal contempt similarly requires a showing that the alleged contemnor violated a clear and unequivocal court order (see Matter of Department of Envtl. Protection of City of N.Y. v Department of Envtl. Conservation of State of N.Y., 70 NY2d 233, 240 [1987]; Matter of McCormick v Axelrod, supra; CBS Rubbish Removal v Town of Babylon Sanitation Commn., supra). Inasmuch as the defendants failed to demonstrate that the plaintiff violated a prior order of the court, the Supreme Court properly denied the defendants’ motion to adjudicate the plaintiff in civil and criminal contempt.

The defendants’ remaining contentions are without merit. S. Miller, J.P., Krausman, Goldstein and Covello, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

22 A.D.3d 800, 803 N.Y.S.2d 155, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/giorgini-v-goldfield-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack