Haber v. Haber

225 A.D.2d 664, 639 N.Y.2d 476, 639 N.Y.S.2d 476, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2644
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMarch 18, 1996
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 225 A.D.2d 664 (Haber v. Haber) 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
Haber v. Haber, 225 A.D.2d 664, 639 N.Y.2d 476, 639 N.Y.S.2d 476, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2644 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Opinion

In order to sustain a finding of contempt based on an alleged violation of a court order, it is necessary to establish that a lawful order of the court clearly expressing an unequivocal mandate was in effect (see, Guerriere v Guerriere, 188 AD2d 583, 584; see also, Matter of Frandsen v Frandsen, 190 AD2d 975, 976). Furthermore, a party who seeks to hold a spouse in contempt of court pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 245 must ordinarily exhaust her alternative remedies under that section. However, when the alternative remedies would be ineffectual, they need not be exhausted (see, Rosenblitt v Rosenblitt, 121 AD2d 375).

The defendant was properly adjudged to be in contempt of the pendente lite order dated August 27,1994. The order clearly and unequivocally required the plaintiff to obtain medical insurance on behalf of the defendant and the parties’ two children and to pay all ordinary or routine unreimbursed medical [665]*665expenses incurred by them, which he failed to do. Moreover, the record reveals that alternative remedies under Domestic Relations Law § 245 would be ineffectual.

The Supreme Court properly resolved the contempt issue on the papers submitted without holding a hearing (see, Matter of Benny v Benny, 199 AD2d 384).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Balletta, J. P., O’Brien, Altman and Friedmann, JJ., concur.

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

Related

J.L. v. Y.A.E.C.
2026 NY Slip Op 50317(U) (New York Supreme Court, Westchester County, 2026)
Hayes v. Barroga-Hayes
117 A.D.3d 794 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
Sutton v. Sutton
93 A.D.3d 779 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
Lopez v. Ajose
33 A.D.3d 976 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
Rozzo v. Rozzo
274 A.D.2d 53 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)
Barcham-Reichman v. Reichman
250 A.D.2d 609 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)
Lippmann v. Lippmann
239 A.D.2d 346 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)
Muller v. Muller
233 A.D.2d 486 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1996)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
225 A.D.2d 664, 639 N.Y.2d 476, 639 N.Y.S.2d 476, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2644, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/haber-v-haber-nyappdiv-1996.