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).

Under the Domestic Relations Law once the movant establishes a knowing failure to comply with a clear and unequivocal mandate, the burden shifts to the alleged contemnor to refute the movant's showing, or to offer evidence of a defense, such as an inability to comply with the order. (Mollah v. Mollah, 136 AD3d 992, 993 26 N.Y.S.3d 298 (2d Dept.,2016).