Matter of Zuckerman v. Kohn

Opinion

Matter of Zuckerman v Kohn

2026 NY Slip Op 04864

August 5, 2026

Appellate Division, Second Department

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This decision is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

In the Matter of Elazar Zuckerman, respondent,

v

Livia Kohn, appellant.

Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department

Decided on August 5, 2026

2025-04727, (Docket Nos. V-2138-16/21O, V-2139-16/21O, V-92-17/21K, V-93-17/21K, F-52-23/23A)

Colleen D. Duffy, J.P.

William G. Ford

Carl J. Landicino

Elena Goldberg Velazquez, JJ.

Livia Kohn, Suffern, NY, appellant pro se.

Brustein-Kampel & Presser, P.C., New City, NY (Lynn J. Brustein-Kampel of counsel), for respondent.

[*1]

DECISION & ORDER

In related proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act articles 4 and 6, the mother appeals from an order of commitment of the Family Court, Rockland County (David M. Ascher, J.), dated March 11, 2025. The order of commitment, upon granting the father's motion to hold the mother in contempt for failing to obey an order of the same court (Keith J. Cornell, J.) dated November 6, 2024, committed the mother to the custody of the Rockland County Jail for a period of 45 days unless she paid a purge amount of $25,000.

ORDERED that the appeal from so much of the order of commitment as committed the mother to the custody of the Rockland County Jail for a period of 45 days unless she paid the purge amount of $25,000 is dismissed as academic, without costs or disbursements; and it is further,

ORDERED that the order of commitment is affirmed insofar as reviewed, without costs or disbursements.

The parties to these proceedings, who were divorced in 2017, have two children in common. In an amended order dated May 9, 2024 (hereinafter the amended May 2024 order), the Family Court, inter alia, granted the father's motion to hold the mother in civil contempt of a prior custody order and directed the mother to pay the father's counsel fees in the sum of $25,000 as a fine for her contempt. Thereafter, the father moved, among other things, to hold the mother in contempt of the amended May 2024 order on the ground that the mother failed to pay the sum of $25,000 as required by that order and for additional counsel fees. In an order dated November 6, 2024 (hereinafter the November 2024 order), the court, inter alia, granted the motion, holding the mother in civil contempt of the amended May 2024 order and directing her to pay counsel fees in the total sum of $75,000.

The father again moved to hold the mother in civil contempt, this time with respect to the November 2024 order for failure to pay the sum of $75,000. The mother opposed the motion. In an order of commitment dated March 11, 2025, the Family Court granted the father's motion and committed the mother to the Rockland County Jail for a period of 45 days with a purge amount of $25,000. The mother appeals.

Inasmuch as the mother purged herself of the contempt one day after she was incarcerated and thereupon was released from incarceration, the appeal from so much of the order of commitment as committed the mother to the custody of the Rockland County Jail for a period of [*2]45 days unless she paid the purge amount of $25,000 must be dismissed as academic (see Matter of Sylvester v Goffe, 202 AD3d 970, 971; Cutroneo v Cutroneo, 140 AD3d 1006, 1007). However, the appeal from so much of the order of commitment as confirmed the finding that the mother was in contempt of the November 2024 order is not academic in light of the enduring consequences which might flow from that finding (see Matter of Bickwid v Deutsch, 87 NY2d 862, 863; Matter of Tyler D., 166 AD3d 612, 613-614).

A motion to punish a party for civil contempt is addressed to the sound discretion of the court (see Naser v Naser, 244 AD3d 1220, 1221). To prevail on a motion to hold another party in civil contempt, the movant is required to prove by clear and convincing evidence that a lawful order of the court, clearly expressing an unequivocal mandate, was in effect, that the order was disobeyed and the party disobeying the order had knowledge of its terms, and that the movant was prejudiced by the offending conduct (see Matter of Weiss v Rosenthal, 195 AD3d 730, 731-732; Lugo v Torres, 174 AD3d 595, 596). "Once the movant establishes a knowing failure to comply with a clear and unequivocal mandate, the burden shifts to the alleged contemnor to refute the movant's showing, or to offer evidence of a defense, such as an inability to comply with the order" (Lugo v Torres, 174 AD3d at 596).

Here, the father established by clear and convincing evidence that the mother violated a clear and unequivocal mandate contained in the November 2024 order of which she was aware. Moreover, the father established that he was prejudiced by the mother's violation (see Matter of Weiss v Rosenthal, 195 AD3d at 732; Lugo v Torres, 174 AD3d at 596). In opposition, the mother did not refute the father's showing or offer evidence sufficiently establishing a defense (see Naser v Naser, 244 AD3d at 1222; Mollah v Mollah, 136 AD3d 992). Accordingly, the father established his entitlement to a finding of contempt against the mother.

The mother's remaining contentions are without merit.

DUFFY, J.P., FORD, LANDICINO and GOLDBERG VELAZQUEZ, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Darrell M. Joseph

Clerk of the Court