Contempt of Court—A Remedy of First Resort
Civil contempt is punishable by imprisonment or fine, and since 2016 has become a remedy of first resort. For that reason, it can be very effective to enforce financial awards in matrimonial actions. However, a contempt finding will be reversed when an accused spouse is denied his constitutional rights.
June 29, 2023 at 01:24 PM
15 minute read
Domestic Relations Law Section 245 authorizes a spouse to make an application under Judiciary Law Section 756, to punish his or her spouse for civil contempt, if he or she defaults in paying any sum of money required by a judgment or order. Civil contempt is punishable by imprisonment or fine, and since 2016 has become a remedy of first resort. For that reason, it can be very effective to enforce financial awards in matrimonial actions. However, a contempt finding will be reversed when an accused spouse is denied his constitutional rights.
The requirements for a finding of contempt under the Domestic Relations law are different than those under the Family Court Act because "the two statutes are different." (Matter of Powers v. Powers, 86 N.Y.2d 63, 629 N.Y.S.2d 984 (1995)). Unlike Domestic Relations Law Section 245, a respondent is prima facie presumed in a hearing under Family Court Act Section 454 to have sufficient means to support his or her spouse and children under the age of 21 (Family Ct Act Section 437). For purposes of Family Court Act Section 454, failure to pay support as ordered itself constitutes "prima facie evidence of a willful violation" (Family Ct Act Section 454 (3)(a)). Thus, proof that the respondent has failed to pay support as ordered alone establishes the petitioner's direct case of willful violation, shifting to the respondent the burden of going forward. (Matter of Matter of Powers v/ Powers, supra) (Family Court contempt proceedings and defenses are discussed in Brandes, "Enforcement of Support Orders by Contempt of Court," NYLJ Oct. 21, 2021, P.3, Col.1).
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllDecision of the Day: Judge Sanctions Attorney for 'Frivolously' Claiming All Nine Personal Injury Categories in Motor Vehicle Case
Decision of the Day: Trial Court's Sidestep of 'Batson' Deprived Defendant of Challenge to Jury Discrimination
Decision of the Day: Commercial Division Finds Defendant Engaged in Unfair Competition Against Plaintiff
Trending Stories
- 1Conversation Catalyst: Transforming Professional Advancement Through Strategic Dialogue
- 2Trump Taps McKinsey CLO Pierre Gentin for Commerce Department GC
- 3Critical Mass With Law.com's Amanda Bronstad: 700+ Residents Near Ohio Derailment File New Suit, Is the FAA to Blame For Last Month's Air Disasters?
- 4Law Journal Column on Marital Residence Sales in Pending Divorces Puts 'Misplaced' Reliance on Two Cases
- 5A Message to the Community: Meeting the Moment in 2025
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250