Ottomanelli v. Ottomanelli
Cases that cite this one
10 later published cases cite this decision.
- Delijani v. Delijani (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2010)
- Miller v. Miller (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
- Matter of East End Hangars, Inc. v. Town of E. Hampton, N.Y. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2024)
- Silla v. Silla (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2024)
- Formosa v. Litt (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
- Massimi v. Massimi (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2008)
- Tannenbaum v. Tannenbaum (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2007)
- Dankner v. Steefel (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2007)
- Biggio v. Biggio (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2007)
- Raphael v. Raphael (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant wife appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Iannacci, J.), entered May 12, 2004, as denied her motion to hold the plaintiff husband in contempt of court and for an award of an attorney’s fee and granted the plaintiff husband’s cross motion to discontinue the action. Motion by the husband to dismiss stated portions of the
Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and the papers filed in opposition thereto, and upon the submission of the appeal, it is
Ordered that the branch of the motion which is to dismiss stated portions of the appeal is granted, the appeal from so much of the order as granted the husband’s motion to discontinue the action is dismissed, and the motion is otherwise denied; and it is further,
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as reviewed, without costs or disbursements.
The Supreme Court properly denied the wife’s motion to hold the husband in contempt of court and for an award of an attorney’s fee. “To sustain a finding of civil contempt based upon a violation of a court order, it is necessary to establish that a lawful court order clearly expressing an unequivocal mandate was in effect and the person alleged to have violated the order had actual knowledge of its terms” (Kawar v Kawar, 231 AD2d 681, 682 [1996], quoting Graham v Graham, 152 AD2d 653, 654 [1989]). It cannot be said that the preliminary conference order stating that the husband was to continue the present payments expressed an unequivocal mandate which could give rise to a contempt proceeding (see Glassman v Glassman, 20 AD2d 563 [1963]).
As the parties have been divorced by default judgment in New Jersey, any determination by this Court on the issue of the discontinuance of the divorce proceeding in New York will not affect the rights of the parties with respect to this proceeding. We find that the matter does not otherwise warrant invoking an exception to the mootness doctrine (see Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne, 50 NY2d 707, 714 [1980]). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal from that portion of the order as academic. Florio, J.P., Krausman, Luciano and Fisher, JJ., concur.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.