Pantelidis v. Pantelidis

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Pantelidis v. Pantelidis

297 A.D.2d 791, 747 N.Y.2d 809, 747 N.Y.S.2d 809, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8883

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

DecidedSeptember 30, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 297 A.D.2d 791 (Pantelidis v. Pantelidis) 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

Pantelidis v. Pantelidis, 297 A.D.2d 791, 747 N.Y.2d 809, 747 N.Y.S.2d 809, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8883 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

It is well settled that a finding of civil contempt, predicated upon a violation of a court order, must be based upon a determination that there existed a lawful court order expressing an “unequivocal mandate,” that the person to be held in contempt of such order had actual knowledge of its terms, and that the offending conduct “defeated, impaired, impeded, or prejudiced” a right or remedy of the complaining party (see McCain v Dinkins, 84 NY2d 216, 226; Matter of McCormick v Axelrod, 59 [792]*792NY2d 574, 583; Matter of Hoglund v Hoglund, 234 AD2d 794; Paulmann v Paulmann, 224 AD2d 891, 892). The Supreme Court properly found that the plaintiff was in contempt of court, as the plaintiff impeded the defendant’s efforts to comply with the provisions of the judgment of divorce entered August 16, 2000, which required the parties to sell a piece of property located at 23-14 Broadway in Astoria, Queens.

The plaintiff’s remaining contentions are without merit. Feuerstein, J.P., Smith, Friedmann and Adams, JJ., concur.

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

It is well settled that a finding of civil contempt, predicated upon a violation of a court order, must be based upon a determination that there existed a lawful court order expressing an “unequivocal mandate,” that the person to be held in contempt of such order had actual knowledge of its terms, and that the offending conduct “defeated, impaired, impeded, or prejudiced” a right or remedy of the complaining party (see McCain v Dinkins, 84 NY2d 216, 226; Matter of McCormick v Axelrod, 59 [792]*792NY2d 574, 583; Matter of Hoglund v Hoglund, 234 AD2d 794; Paulmann v Paulmann, 224 AD2d 891, 892). The Supreme Court properly found that the plaintiff was in contempt of court, as the plaintiff impeded the defendant’s efforts to comply with the provisions of the judgment of divorce entered August 16, 2000, which required the parties to sell a piece of property located at 23-14 Broadway in Astoria, Queens.

The plaintiff’s remaining contentions are without merit. Feuerstein, J.P., Smith, Friedmann and Adams, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

297 A.D.2d 791, 747 N.Y.2d 809, 747 N.Y.S.2d 809, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8883, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pantelidis-v-pantelidis-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack