Delijani v Delijani

Delijani v Delijani 2013 NY Slip Op 04769 Decided on June 26, 2013 Appellate Division, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on June 26, 2013
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORKAPPELLATE DIVISION : SECOND JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
L. PRISCILLA HALL, J.P.
PLUMMER E. LOTT
SHERI S. ROMAN
SANDRA L. SGROI, JJ.
2011-05501
(Index No. 4785/99)

[*1]Morgan Delijani, respondent,

v

Parham Delijani, defendant; Sean Sabeti, nonparty-appellant.




Sean Sabeti, Great Neck, N.Y., nonparty-appellant pro se.
Anthony A. Capetola, Williston Park, N.Y. (Michele R. Olsen
and Robert P. Johnson of counsel), for
respondent.


DECISION & ORDER

In a matrimonial action in which the parties were divorced by judgment entered December 4, 2003, the nonparty Sean Sabeti, the defendant's former attorney, appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Maron, J.), dated May 13, 2011, which, after a hearing, in effect, granted that branch of the plaintiff's motion which was to hold him in criminal contempt for violating a "so-ordered" stipulation dated June 9, 2009, and imposed a fine in the sum of $1,000 for his criminal contempt.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

To prevail on a motion to punish for criminal contempt, the moving party must establish, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the alleged contemnor willfully disobeyed a clear and unequivocal court order (see Matter of Department of Envtl. Protection of City of N.Y. v Department of Envtl. Conservation of State of N.Y., 70 NY2d 233, 240; Town Bd. of Town of Southhampton v R.K.B. Realty, LLC, 91 AD3d 628, 629; McGrath v McGrath, 85 AD3d 742, 742-743; Judiciary Law § 750[A][3]). Here, contrary to the appellant's contention, there was sufficient evidence presented at the hearing to establish, beyond a reasonable doubt, that his repeated violation of a "so-ordered" stipulation dated June 9, 2009, was willful (see Matter of Department of Envtl. Protection of City of N.Y. v Department of Envtl. Conservation of State of N.Y., 70 NY2d at 241; Town Bd. of Town of Southhampton v R.K.B. Realty, LLC, 91 AD3d at 630; Casavecchia v Mizrahi, 57 AD3d 702, 704; Papa v 24 Caryl Ave. Realty Co., 14 AD3d 600).

The appellant's remaining contentions are either without merit or not properly before this Court.
HALL, J.P., LOTT, ROMAN and SGROI, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Aprilanne Agostino

Clerk of the Court