You are here: / / The Precise Terms of the Stipulation Were Not Demonstrated to Have Been...
, ,

The Precise Terms of the Stipulation Were Not Demonstrated to Have Been Violated—Contempt Finding Improper

The Third Department determined the wife was improperly held in contempt re: a stipulation about refinancing the marital residence. The stipulation required that the wife make a good faith effort to refinance, but did not address the consequences of a failed attempt. By finding the wife in contempt for failing to refinance, the court improperly re-wrote the stipulation:

“To sustain a civil contempt finding based upon the violation of a court order, it must be established that there was a lawful court order in effect that clearly expressed an unequivocal mandate, that the person who allegedly violated the order had actual knowledge of its terms, and that his or her actions or failure to act defeated, impaired, impeded or prejudiced a right of the moving party” … . Such violation, in turn, “must be established by clear and convincing evidence” … . “The decision of whether to hold in contempt a party who fails to comply with a court order rests within the court’s sound discretion” … .

Here, a review of the underlying order makes clear that Supreme Court found the wife to be in contempt of the parties’ April 2012 stipulation based upon her failure to refinance the marital residence “as agreed or otherwise take action to remove [the husband’s] name from the existing mortgage.” The parties’ stipulation, however, did not require the wife to successfully refinance the marital residence and remove the husband’s name from the existing mortgage; rather, the stipulation only imposed upon her the obligation to “make a good faith effort to obtain [such] financing . . . and remove [the husband’s] name from the mortgage within 45 days after receiving the [quitclaim deed].” Notably, the stipulation was silent as to the parties’ respective rights and obligations in the event that the wife attempted — but did not actually succeed — in obtaining such financing … and, by directing the sale of the marital residence in the event that the wife did not obtain refinancing within a specified time period, Supreme Court essentially revised the parties’ agreement to supply a solution to a problem that, on the face of the agreement, the parties themselves apparently did not contemplate. Howe v Howe, 2015 NY Slip Op 07709, 3rd Dept 10-22-15

 

You might also like
People Failed to Demonstrate Seizure of Heroin from Defendant’s Impounded Vehicle Was Pursuant to a Standard Inventory Search—Heroin Should Have Been Suppressed
A POOR-QUALITY VIDEO SHOWED THE SHOOTING AND THE SHOOTER GETTING INTO THE DRIVER’S SEAT OF THE CAR WHICH WAS STOPPED AFTER A CHASE; THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE ANY OF THE OCCUPANTS GOT OUT OF THE DRIVER SIDE OF THE CAR; TWO OF THE OCCUPANTS HAD CLOTHES SIMILAR TO THOSE WORN BY THE SHOOTER; DEFENDANT’S CONVICTION WAS SUPPORTED BY LEGALLY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE; BUT DEFENDANT’S CONVICTION WAS REVERSED AS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE (THIRD DEPT),
THE CARRIER WHICH HAD ISSUED A BUSINESS AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE POLICY COVERING THE INSURED’S FLATBED TRUCK WAS OBLIGATED TO DEFEND THIS ACTION STEMMING FROM AN INJURY INCURRED WHILE UNLOADING A TRACTOR FROM THE FLATBED TRUCK; UNLOADING A TRUCK IS CONSIDERED OPERATION OF THE TRUCK UNDER VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW 388 (THIRD DEPT).
THE ALLEGATION THAT DEFENDANT SURGEONS PERFORMED A CHIROPRACTIC PROCEDURE DURING SPINAL FUSION SURGERY SOUNDED IN BATTERY, NOT MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, AND WAS TIME-BARRED; PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT, A CHIROPRACTOR, WAS NOT QUALIFIED TO OFFER AN OPINION ABOUT DEFENDANTS’ SURGERY (THIRD DEPT).
Question of Fact Whether Hospital Vicariously Liable for Actions of Non-Employees
BLOGGER FOR THE NATION MAGAZINE NOT AN EMPLOYEE.
THE SEXUAL ASSAULT REFORM ACT (SARA), WHICH PLACES RESTRICTIONS ON WHERE SEX OFFENDERS CAN RESIDE AFTER RELEASE FROM PRISON, DOES NOT VIOLATE THE EX POST FACTO CLAUSE OF THE US CONSTITUTION (THIRD DEPT).
DRIVER FOR A MEDICAL DELIVERY SERVICE WAS AN EMPLOYEE ENTITLED TO UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS, NOTWITHSTANDING THE DRIVER’S CONTRACT WITH A THIRD PARTY PAYROLL COMPANY.

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

Under the Circumstances Plaintiff Could Not Strictly Comply with the Whistleblower... Flawed Procedure Following “Batson” Challenges to the Prosecution’s...