You are here: / / Order Re: an Easement Allowing Plaintiffs Access to a Lake Was Specific...
,

Order Re: an Easement Allowing Plaintiffs Access to a Lake Was Specific Enough to Support Finding the Defendants in Civil Contempt (for Violation of the Order)—Willfulness Is Not an Element of Civil Contempt—Mere Act of Disobedience Is Enough

The Third Department determined the defendants were properly found to be in contempt of an order concerning plaintiffs’ easement for access to a lake.  The court explained that the order was specific enough to justify the contempt finding and further explained that willfulness is not an element of civil contempt:

…[D]efendants thus contend that they were not prohibited from partially fencing the passageway or placing other property on it, provided that plaintiffs’ reasonable right of passage was not impaired … . However, the rule relied upon by defendants applies to rights-of-way that are not specifically defined or bounded by the language of the grant … . Here, the 2010 order determined that the deeds granted plaintiffs a defined 60-foot-wide easement and right-of-way consisting of the passageway, and that plaintiffs further possessed rights to construct, maintain and use a dock … . The 2010 order also expressly directed defendants to keep the passageway “free of all brush and tall grasses, junk boats, debris, and other personal property” that interfered or could interfere with plaintiffs’ rights, and to maintain the passageway in an unobstructed fashion. Defendants raised no factual challenge to plaintiffs’ claim that the fencing was partially obstructing the passageway, that they had permitted tall grass and brush to grow, and that they had allowed the accumulation of personal property and debris upon the passageway. Accordingly, Supreme Court correctly found that they violated a clear and unequivocal mandate in these respects … .

Although the 2010 order did not specify the precise location where plaintiffs were to construct their dock, it did direct defendants not to interfere with plaintiffs’ right to construct and use a dock “within the northerly extensions” of the passageway. Plaintiffs submitted a survey map and other evidence demonstrating that defendants had placed their dock in the center of the passageway in such a manner that insufficient space was left in the northerly end for plaintiffs to position or use a dock without infringing on the rights of a neighboring landowner. * * *

We reject defendants’ claim that the contempt finding was improper in that they allegedly believed their actions were justified and, thus, were not willfully disobedient. No finding of willfulness or deliberate disregard is required to sustain a civil contempt determination; “the mere act of disobedience, regardless of motive, is sufficient . . . if such disobedience defeats, impairs, impedes or prejudices the rights of a party”… . Hush v Taylor, 2014 NY Slip Op 07231, 3rd Dept 10-23-14

 

You might also like
HERE THE JUDGE’S DECISION TO EMPANEL AN ANONYMOUS JURY WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY SUFFICIENT REASONS; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (THIRD DEPT).
RAISED FIST DID NOT SUPPORT AN INTERFERENCE-WITH-AN-EMPLOYEE CHARGE 3RD DEPT.
APPELLATE COURT EXERCISED ITS POWER TO REDUCE A SENTENCE EVEN THOUGH THE SENTENCING COURT DID NOT ABUSE ITS DISCRETION, NOTING EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES (THIRD DEPT).
PLAINTIFF WAS STRUCK BY A SHED WHICH WAS BEING TRANSPORTED AS AN OVERSIZED LOAD; AN EMPLOYER WHICH HIRES AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR WILL GENERALLY NOT BE VICARIOUSLY LIABLE FOR THE CONTRACTOR’S NEGLIGENCE UNLESS THE CONTRACTOR IS TASKED WITH AN “INHERENTLY DANGEROUS ACTIVITY;” TRANSPORTING AN OVERSIZED LOAD BY TRUCK IS NOT AN “INHERENTLY DANGEROUS ACTIVITY;” THEREFORE THE EMPLOYER WAS NOT VICARIOUSLY LIABLE FOR THE TRUCK DRIVER’S NEGLIGENCE WHICH CAUSED PLAINTIFF’S INJURY (THIRD DEPT).
Lane Abutting Properties Was Not Owned by Property-Owners
NYC DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION’S (DOE’S) DENIALS OF PETITIONERS’ APPLICATIONS FOR ADMISSION TO THE CITY’S SPECIALIZED HIGH SCHOOLS (SHS’S) WERE NOT ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS (THIRD DEPT). ​
Crude Conduct Not Motivated by Petitioners’ Gender/Case of Same Sex Discrimination Not Made Out
DEFENDANT WAS OUTSIDE HIS RESIDENCE WHEN HE WAS ARRESTED AND A PROTECTIVE SWEEP WAS CONDUCTED INSIDE DEFENDANT’S RESIDENCE; ITEMS OBSERVED IN THE RESIDENCE WERE LATER SEIZED PURSUANT TO A SEARCH WARRANT; BECAUSE THE POLICE HAD NO REASON TO SUSPECT OTHERS WERE PRESENT IN THE RESIDENCE, THE PROTECTIVE SWEEP OF THE RESIDENCE WAS NOT JUSTIFIED AND THE OBSERVED ITEMS SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (THIRD DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Plaintiff’s Proof Was Insufficient to Show an Interconnected Attorney-Client... Failure to Strictly Comply with Notice Rules of the Real Property Tax Law Required...