Judges: Mugglin
Filed Date: 4/4/2002
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 11/1/2024
Appeal from an order of the Family Court of Ulster County (Mizel, J.), entered August 14, 2000, which, in a proceeding pursuant to Domestic Relations Law article 5-A, granted respondent’s motion to hold Dolores Lembo in contempt of court and ordered her to pay counsel fees to respondent.
During the course of a contentious custody proceeding, Family Court ordered petitioner to produce her nine-year-old child in court. Instead of complying, she sent the child to school
Notably, no challenge to the contempt finding per se is made. Instead, the grandmother argues that her nonparty status insulates her from Family Court’s jurisdiction to find her in contempt. We find no merit to this argument. Judiciary Law § 753 (A) gives a court of record power to punish, for a civil contempt, “[a] party to the action or special proceeding, an attorney, counsellor, or other person, for the non-payment of a sum of money * * * or for any other disobedience to a lawful mandate of the court” (Judiciary Law § 753 [A] [3] [emphasis supplied]; see, e.g., Power Auth. of State of N.Y. v Moeller, 57 AD2d 380, 382, lv denied 42 NY2d 806).
The grandmother’s other arguments are that Family Court lacked jurisdiction to award respondent counsel fees that he incurred in other courts, these fees were unreasonable in amount, and she was afforded no hearing with respect to this issue. Judiciary Law § 773 permits a court, where no actual monetary damages have been caused by the contempt, to impose a fine “not exceeding the amount of the complainant’s costs and expenses, and [$250] in addition thereto.” It is well settled that counsel fees and disbursements may be awarded against the contemptuous party pursuant to this provision (see, Matter of Daniels v Guntert, 256 AD2d 940, 942; Glanzman v Fischman, 143 AD2d 880, 881, appeal dismissed 74 NY2d 792). The amount awarded should be the fees and costs incurred by the aggrieved party as a direct product of the contemptuous conduct (see, Matter of Daniels v Guntert, supra). Here, counsel’s detailed affidavit particularized the charges incurred to defend and prosecute each part of the litigation flowing from the contemptuous conduct (in Family Court, Supreme Court
Peters, J.P., Carpinello, Rose and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs.