Contempt Archives - New York Appellate Digest

DEFENDANT’S CONTEMPT CONVICTION FOR VIOLATING AN ORDER OF PROTECTION STANDS, DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE ORDER OF PROTECTION WAS BASED ON AN OFFENSE SINCE FOUND UNCONSTITUTIONAL (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined the order of protection based on a conviction for an offense which has been found unconstitutional was voidable, not void, and therefore remained in effect.

Defendant was properly convicted of first-degree criminal contempt under Penal Law § 215.51(b)(v) for violating an order of protection that had been issued upon his conviction of second-degree aggravated harassment under former Penal Law § 240.30(1)(a). The contempt conviction was valid even though the Court of Appeals declared that the aggravated harassment provision underlying the order of protection was unconstitutional in People v Golb (23 NY3d 455 [2014] … . Golb was decided after the order of protection was issued against defendant, but before he violated it. …

The Golb decision did not render defendant’s order of protection void on its face, but merely voidable.

Defendant’s underlying conviction was final before Golb was decided. The order of protection was indisputably valid at the time of its issuance. After Golb, there are no reported cases holding that convictions under former Penal Law § 240.30 (1)(a) are automatically vacated. Instead, where there was vacatur of a conviction or order of protection, it was in response to a request for relief either on appeal or in a posttrial motion … . …

Defendant did not challenge the order of protection by appealing the aggravated harassment conviction against him … . His subsequent CPL 440.10 motion to vacate the conviction and order of protection based on Golb was denied … . Defendant was therefore required to comply with the extant order and his violation constituted criminal contempt … . People v Brown, 2020 NY Slip Op 08011, First Dept 12-29-20

December 29, 2020/0 Comments/by Bruce Freeman

Contempt, Criminal Law

STATUTORY CRITERIA FOR CRIMINAL CONTEMPT FIRST DEGREE NOT MET; CONVICTION REDUCED TO CRIMINAL CONTEMPT SECOND DEGREE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the statutory criteria for criminal contempt first degree were not met and reduced the conviction to criminal contempt second degree:

As the People concede, the evidence was legally insufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt of criminal contempt in the first degree in violation of Penal Law § 215.51(c). An essential element of that crime is that the defendant has violated an order of protection issued pursuant to “sections two hundred forty and two hundred fifty-two of the domestic relations law, articles four, five, six and eight of the family court act and section 530.12 of the criminal procedure law, or an order of protection issued by a court of competent jurisdiction in another state, territorial or tribal jurisdiction, which requires the respondent or defendant to stay away from the person or persons on whose behalf the order was issued” … . Here, the defendant was accused of violating an order of protection issued pursuant to Criminal Procedure Law § 530.13. Criminal Procedure Law § 530.13, which provides protection to victims of crimes other than family offenses, is not one of the authorities enumerated in Penal Law § 215.51(c). Accordingly, the defendant’s conviction of criminal contempt in the first degree was legally insufficient because the People could not prove an essential element of the offense … . However, because the evidence was legally sufficient to support a conviction of the lesser included offense of criminal contempt in the second degree (see Penal Law § 215.50[3]), the defendant’s conviction is reduced accordingly … . People v Smith, 2020 NY Slip Op 07229, Second Dept 12-2-20

December 2, 2020/by Bruce Freeman

Appeals, Contempt, Criminal Law, Evidence

ALTHOUGH THE DEFENDANT VIOLATED THE ORDER OF PROTECTION BY GOING INSIDE THE PROTECTED PERSON’S HOUSE, THERE WAS INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OF ANY CONTACT WITH THE PROTECTED PERSON; CRIMINAL CONTEMPT FIRST CONVICTION REDUCED TO CRIMINAL CONTEMPT SECOND (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reducing the criminal contempt first conviction to criminal contempt second, determined the evidence was legally insufficient. The defendant violated the order of protection by going inside the protected person’s house but there was insufficient evidence of any contact between the defendant and the protected person:

… [T]he People adduced legally insufficient evidence that defendant intentionally violated “that part” of the protective order that required him to “stay away from the [protected] person,” as required for a conviction for criminal contempt in the first degree under Penal Law § 215.51 (c) … . Rather, the evidence proves only that defendant committed the lesser included offense of criminal contempt in the second degree under section 215.50 (3) by going to the protected person’s house, and we therefore modify the judgment accordingly … . People v Crittenden, 2020 NY Slip Op 06901, Fourth Dept 11-20-20

November 20, 2020/by Bruce Freeman

Contempt, Criminal Law, Evidence

THE UNIQUE PROOF REQUIREMENTS FOR CRIMINAL CONTEMPT FIRST DEGREE FOR VIOLATION OF AN ORDER OF PROTECTION WERE NOT MET; THE FACT THAT DEFENDANT STIPULATED TO THE ACCURACY OF AN INACCURATE SPECIAL INFORMATION ABOUT A PRIOR CRIMINAL CONTEMPT CONVICTION DOES NOT REQUIRE A DIFFERENT RESULT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department reduced the criminal contempt first degree convictions to criminal contempt second degree for violation of an order of protection, explaining the proof requirements for criminal contempt first were not met and noting that defendant’s stipulation to an inaccurate special information re a predicate offense does not require a different result:

The People were required to establish as an element of the offense of criminal contempt in the first degree that defendant had been previously convicted, within the preceding five years, of the crime of aggravated criminal contempt or criminal contempt in the first or second degree “for violating an order of protection” that “require[d] the . . . defendant to stay away from the person or persons on whose behalf the order was issued” (Penal Law § 215.51 [c]). Thus, this is a situation where the enhancing element of an offense is not merely the existence of a prior conviction, but also the existence of additional facts related to that prior conviction … . The special information filed by the People to assert the existence of the predicate conviction (see CPL 200.60 [1], [2]) alleges only that defendant previously had been convicted of the crime of criminal contempt in the second degree, without specifying whether that previous conviction involved the violation of an order of protection or of any stay-away provision therein … .

The fact that defendant stipulated to the accuracy of the imprecise special information did not relieve the People of their burden of establishing the predicate conviction and related facts as part of their case-in-chief … . People v Barrett, 2020 NY Slip Op 06899, Fourth Dept 11-20-20

November 20, 2020/by Bruce Freeman

Contempt, Employment Law

BECAUSE PETITIONER WAS REINSTATED IN HER JOB AND BACKPAY HAD BEEN PROVIDED FOR THE PERIOD OF WRONGFUL SUSPENSION BY THE TIME THE CONTEMPT HEARING WAS HELD, PETITIONER COULD NOT SHOW SHE HAD BEEN PREJUDICED BY ANY FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE RELEVANT ORDER; THEREFORE THE EMPLOYER SHOULD NOT HAVE HELD IN CONTEMPT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined petitioner’s employer (NYS Department of Transportation [DOT}]) should not have been held in contempt for the alleged failure to quickly restore petitioner to the payroll and provide backpay because DOT had fulfilled those directives by the time the contempt hearing was held:

… [W]e conclude that the court erred in granting that part of petitioner’s motion seeking to have the DOT respondents adjudged in contempt of the October 2015 judgment. “A finding of civil contempt must be supported by four elements: (1) a lawful order of the court, clearly expressing an unequivocal mandate, was in effect; (2) [i]t must appear, with reasonable certainty, that the order has been disobeyed; (3) the party to be held in contempt must have had knowledge of the court’s order, although it is not necessary that the order actually have been served upon the party; and (4) prejudice to the right of a party to the litigation must be demonstrated” … . A movant seeking a contempt order bears the burden of establishing the foregoing elements by clear and convincing evidence … . We review a court’s ruling on a contempt motion for an abuse of discretion … .

Here, we conclude that petitioner failed to show by clear and convincing evidence that the failure of the DOT respondents to immediately comply with the directives of the October 2015 judgment ” defeat[ed], impair[ed], impede[d] or prejudice[d]’ ” petitioner’s rights … . We are mindful that “[a]ny penalty imposed [for a civil contempt] is designed not to punish but, rather, to compensate the injured private party or to coerce compliance with the court’s mandate or both” … . By the time the court conducted the hearing on petitioner’s contempt motion, it was undisputed that she had been restored to the payroll, was receiving payment, and had been awarded back pay for the time she was wrongly suspended without pay. Thus, the goals of civil contempt would not be furthered by granting petitioner’s motion absent any prejudice to her once the relevant DOT respondents complied with the directives of the October 2015 judgment and restored her to paid status. Matter of Mundell v New York State Dept. of Transp., 2020 NY Slip Op 04099, Fourth Dept 7-17-20

July 16, 2020/by Bruce Freeman

Contempt, Evidence, Family Law, Judges

SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE GRANTED SOLE CUSTODY TO FATHER, SHOULD NOT HAVE SANCTIONED MOTHER FOR PERJURY ALLEGEDLY COMMITTED IN A DIFFERENT COURT PROCEEDING, AND SHOULD NOT HAVE ORDERED RELIEF NOT REQUESTED BY A PARTY (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined: (1) father should not have been awarded sole custody of the children for 60 days because no change of circumstances was alleged or demonstrated; (2) the court should not have, sua sponte, directed a child be deprived of cell phone and other electronic devices and be barred from outside-the-home activities; (3) the court should not have have directed mother to pay a fine to father for perjury; (4) the court did not have the authority to sanction mother for frivolous conduct (perjury); (5) the court should not have awarded attorney’s fees to father:

… [T]he court summarily punished the mother by sanctioning her after it determined that she committed perjury during her testimony before a Judicial Hearing Officer in Family Court with respect to the temporary order of protection and during her testimony at the hearing on the petition before Supreme Court. Assuming, arguendo, that perjury would support a finding of contempt, we conclude that the court could not properly find the mother in criminal contempt based on her testimony in Family Court, nor could the court summarily punish the mother for civil or criminal contempt based on that testimony, inasmuch as it occurred out of the court’s “immediate view and presence” … . Insofar as the order may be deemed to sanction the mother for civil or criminal contempt that occurred in the presence of Supreme Court, we conclude that, because “due process requires that . . . the contemnor be afforded an opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner’ ” … , and the court failed to provide notice that it was considering finding the mother in contempt or an opportunity to be heard thereon, the court erred in imposing such sanction … . …

Assuming, arguendo, that sanctions for frivolous conduct may be based on a party’s perjury, we conclude that the regulation permitting the imposition of such sanctions specifically provides that it “shall not apply to . . . proceedings in the Family Court commenced under article . . . 8 of the Family Court Act” … . …

In awarding attorney’s fees to the father, the court did not state, and we cannot determine on this record, whether it did so based upon the custodial stipulation between the parties or pursuant to statute. Consequently, we are unable ” to determine whether the award was within the proper exercise of the court’s discretion’ ” … . Ritchie v Ritchie, 2020 NY Slip Op 03316, Fourth Dept 6-12-20

June 12, 2020/by Bruce Freeman

Attorneys, Contempt, Family Law

FATHER DID NOT RECEIVE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL IN THIS CHILD SUPPORT PROCEEDING RESULTING IN HIS COMMITMENT TO THREE MONTHS IN JAIL; NEW HEARING ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined father did not receive effective assistance of counsel in this child support proceeding which committed father to three months in jail for violation of the child support order:

We agree with the father that he was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel at a hearing on the mother’s petition for violation of an order of child support. In support proceedings such as this one, “the appropriate standard to apply in evaluating a claim of ineffective assistance is the meaningful representation standard”… . Here, the father’s defense at the hearing was that because of a back injury, he was unable to continue working as a mail carrier beginning in January 2018 and that, prior to obtaining a new position at the post office in March 2019, he searched for different work. Notably, despite being advised on multiple occasions that the father was required to provide a financial disclosure affidavit, tax forms, proof that he was diligently searching for employment, and certified medical records, counsel failed to procure the father’s medical records or provide the court with any relevant financial documentation. The father’s counsel also failed to call any witnesses to testify as to the effects of the father’s back injury, subpoena his treating physician, or obtain a medical affidavit. The Family Court made specific reference to the lack of any credible medical testimony, financial disclosure affidavit, tax returns, or proof of a job search in its determination that the father failed to refute the mother’s prima facie showing of willfulness. Counsel’s failure to obtain relevant medical information or to procure financial and job search records that may have supported the father’s contention constituted a failure to meaningfully represent the father, and he is entitled to a new hearing on the violation petition … . Matter of Miller v DiPalma, 2020 NY Slip Op 00140, Second Dept 1-8-20

January 8, 2020/by Bruce Freeman

Appeals, Contempt, Family Law

SENTENCE WHICH INCLUDED BOTH JAIL TIME AND PROBATION FOR VIOLATION OF A CHILD SUPPORT ORDER IS ILLEGAL; AN ILLEGAL SENTENCE IS APPEALABLE WITHOUT PRESERVATION OF THE ERROR (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined the imposition of a jail sentence and probation for father’s failure to pay support in violation of a court order was illegal. An illegal sentence is appealable without preservation of the error:

Although the father failed to preserve his challenge to the legality of his sentence, a challenge to an unlawful sentence is not subject to the preservation rule … . Family Court Act § 454 expressly delineates the authority of the Family Court to impose either probation or a term of incarceration upon a finding of a willful violation of an order of support, not both (… Family Court Act § 454[3]). Thus, the Family Court was without authority to impose both a jail term and probation (see Family Court Act § 454[3] …). Since the father completed his 90-day term of incarceration, that portion of his sentence imposing probation must be vacated … . Matter of Lopez v Wessin, 2020 NY Slip Op 00137, Second Dept 1-8-20

January 8, 2020/by Bruce Freeman

Appeals, Contempt, Family Law

FATHER WAS ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON WHETHER HE WILLFULLY VIOLATED A CHILD SUPPORT ORDER, ALTHOUGH FATHER COMPLETED THE SENTENCE OF INCARCERATION, THE APPEAL IS NOT MOOT BECAUSE OF THE STIGMA OF A CIVIL CONTEMPT FINDING (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Family Court, determined father was entitled to a hearing on whether he willfully violated a child support order. The Fourth Department noted that. although father had completed the sentence of incarceration, the appeal was not moot because of the consequences which could flow from a finding of civil contempt:

We agree with the father … that the court erred when it determined that the father’s alleged violation of the child support order was willful because it did not afford the father with the opportunity to be heard and present witnesses (… see generally Family Ct Act §§ 433, 454 [1]). Although “[n]o specific form of a hearing is required, . . . at a minimum the hearing must consist of an adducement of proof coupled with an opportunity to rebut it” … . Moreover, “[i]t is well settled that neither a colloquy between a respondent and [the] [c]ourt nor between a respondent’s counsel and the court is sufficient to constitute the required hearing” … .

Here, none of the parties’ appearances on the violation petition consisted “of an adducement of proof coupled with an opportunity to rebut it” … . At most, there was merely “a colloquy” between the father and Support Magistrate, which is insufficient to constitute the required hearing . Moreover, there is nothing in the record to establish … petitioner mother provided admissible evidence with respect to the father’s alleged willful failure to pay child support, nor is there any admissible evidence submitted by the Support Collection Unit (see generally Family Ct Act § 439 [d] … ). Also, the father was never given the opportunity to present evidence rebutting the allegations in the petition. Matter of Green v Lafler, 2019 NY Slip Op 08306, Fourth Dept 11-15-19

November 15, 2019/by Bruce Freeman

Attorneys, Civil Procedure, Contempt, Foreclosure, Privilege

MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA ISSUED TO ATTORNEY WHO REPRESENTED THE ORIGINAL BORROWERS AGAINST PROPERTY SUBJECT TO FORECLOSURE PROCEEDINGS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN QUASHED, CIVIL CONTEMPT ACTION AGAINST THE ATTORNEY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, CRITERIA FOR BOTH TYPES OF PROCEEDINGS EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the subpoona issued by the current owners of property subject to a foreclosure action (the Frankels) to the attorney (Satran) who represented the parties who initially took out the loan (the Confinos) should not have been quashed, the action for civil contempt against the attorney should not have been dismissed, and attorney-client privilege could only be asserted at a subsequent deposition:

“A party or nonparty moving to quash a subpoena has the initial burden of establishing either that the requested disclosure is utterly irrelevant to the action or that the futility of the process to uncover anything legitimate is inevitable or obvious'” … . ” Should the [movant] meet this burden, the subpoenaing party must then establish that the discovery sought is material and necessary to the prosecution or defense of [the] action'” … .

Here, Satran failed to meet his initial burden of demonstrating either that the requested disclosure was “utterly irrelevant” to the action or that the “futility of the process to uncover anything legitimate is inevitable or obvious” … . * * *

Additionally, the Supreme Court should have granted the Frankels’ motion to hold Satran in civil contempt for failure to comply with the subpoena by failing to appear for a deposition. “To prevail on a motion to hold another in civil contempt, the moving party must prove by clear and convincing evidence (1) that a lawful order of the court, clearly expressing an unequivocal mandate, was in effect, (2) that the order was disobeyed and the party disobeying the order had knowledge of its terms, and (3) that the movant was prejudiced by the offending conduct'” … . ” To satisfy the prejudice element, it is sufficient to allege and prove that the contemnor’s actions were calculated to or actually did defeat, impair, impede, or prejudice the rights or remedies of a party'” … .

Here, it was undisputed that Satran failed to comply with the subpoena by failing to appear for a deposition and that he had knowledge of the terms of the subpoena. Moreover, the Frankels demonstrated that Satran’s conduct prejudiced their right under CPLR 3101(a)(4) to obtain all information relevant and necessary to their defense of the present action and their cross claims against the Confinos … . Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Confino, 2019 NY Slip Op 06114, Second Dept 8-7-19

August 7, 2019/by Bruce Freeman