Opinion
14919 Index No. 104135/08 Case No. 2021–02527
12-28-2021
60 E. 9TH STREET OWNERS CORP., Plaintiff–Respondent, v. Albert N. ZIHENNI, Defendant–Appellant.
Bleakley Platt & Schmidt, LLP, White Plains (Vincent W. Crowe of counsel), for appellant. Smith, Buss & Jacobs, LLP, Yonkers (John J. Malley of counsel), for respondent.
Bleakley Platt & Schmidt, LLP, White Plains (Vincent W. Crowe of counsel), for appellant.
Smith, Buss & Jacobs, LLP, Yonkers (John J. Malley of counsel), for respondent.
Kern, J.P., Moulton, Mendez, Shulman, Higgitt, JJ.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Arthur F. Engoron, J.), entered February 1, 2021, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied defendant's motion to vacate the court's prior order, dated April 9, 2019, and granted plaintiff's motion to the extent of holding defendant in civil contempt for disobeying and resisting the April 9, 2019 order, unanimously affirmed, with costs.
The motion court providently exercised its discretion in granting the motion to hold defendant in civil contempt, as plaintiff established by clear and convincing evidence that defendant violated a lawful, clear mandate of the court, of which he had knowledge, and that the violation resulted in prejudice to plaintiff ( Judiciary Law § 753 ; see El–Dehdan v. El–Dehdan, 26 N.Y.3d 19, 29, 19 N.Y.S.3d 475, 41 N.E.3d 340 [2015] ; Sang Cheol Woo v. Spackman, 196 A.D.3d 433, 433, 147 N.Y.S.3d 411 [1st Dept. 2021] ). Likewise, the court providently exercised its discretion in denying defendant's motion to vacate. The evidence submitted by plaintiff in opposition to defendant's motion adequately addressed and refuted defendant's allegations that he had not engaged in any misconduct warranting the requested relief.