I. Statement Pursuant to CPLR § 2219 [a]

The following e-filed documents listed on NYSCEF (Motion No. 010) numbered 264, 269, 287-306 were read on this motion. Oral argument was completed on January 29, 2026.

This Decision and Order is rendered upon Plaintiff's Order to Show Cause dated November 20, 2025, seeking to hold Defendant in civil contempt for failure to comply with this Court's Decision and Order dated October 3, 2025; upon Plaintiff's supporting affirmation; upon Defendant's sworn opposition, including his updated Statement of Net Worth dated January 14, 2026 and annexed financial documentation; and after consideration of all papers and proceedings had herein.

II. Finding of Facts

This matrimonial action arises from the dissolution of the marriage between Plaintiff MA and Defendant VA. One child was born of the marriage, WRA, born XXX X, 2024. By stipulation dated XX XX, 2025, the parties resolved custody and parenting time, agreeing to joint custody and equal parenting time. (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 189).

Following trial on financial issues, this Court issued a Decision and Order dated October 3, 2025. (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 212). In that Order, the Court imputed annual income of $75,000 to Defendant and $45,000 to Plaintiff. (see id). The Court directed Defendant to pay retroactive child support in the amount of $7,947.62 within thirty days, to pay Plaintiff's counsel fees in the amount of $37,200 within thirty days, and to pay ongoing child support in the amount of $947.09 per month thereafter. (see id). Defendant does not dispute knowledge of the October 3, 2025 Order and does not dispute that he has failed to pay the lump-sum retroactive child support and counsel fee awards.

Plaintiff thereafter filed the present application seeking to have Defendant adjudicated in civil contempt for failure to comply with the October 3, 2025 Order. Defendant opposes, asserting an inability to pay.

Defendant submitted a sworn Statement of Net Worth dated January 14, 2026. (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 307). In that disclosure, Defendant reports ownership of a two-family residence valued at $900,000, subject to a mortgage balance of $578,983.37, reflecting reported real-property equity exceeding $300,000. (see id). Defendant further reports ownership of financial accounts including a brokerage account at Redacted with a current value of $63,897.08, an auto-investment account at Redacted valued at $10,237.22, a Roth IRA valued at $32,941.86, and a Traditional IRA valued at $7,261.53. (see id). Defendant also reports bank checking and savings accounts totaling approximately $4,217.69. (see id). Defendant does not assert that any of these assets are frozen, legally inaccessible, or unavailable for liquidation, borrowing, or application toward court-ordered obligations.

Defendant acknowledges that he has not satisfied the lump-sum retroactive child support or counsel fee obligations imposed by the October 3, 2025 Order and asserts that payment would impose financial hardship. Defendant does not allege that liquidation, encumbrance, or borrowing against his disclosed assets was impossible.

III. Conclusions of Law

Civil contempt is governed by Judiciary Law § 753, which authorizes punishment for disobedience of a lawful court order. As set forth in the parties' submissions; to establish civil contempt the moving party must prove by clear and convincing evidence the existence of a lawful order containing an unequivocal mandate, knowledge of that order by the alleged contemnor, disobedience of the order, and prejudice to the rights of the moving party. Willful disobedience must be shown. The burden of proof rests upon the moving party (see El-Dehdan v El-Dehdan, 114 AD3d 4 [2d Dept 2013]).

Once a prima facie showing is made, the burden shifts to the alleged contemnor to offer competent and credible evidence of inability to comply (see Probert v Probert, 67 AD3d 806 [2d Dept 2009]); Matter of Powers v Powers, 86 NY2d 63 [1995]). Inability to comply constitutes a complete defense only where compliance is shown to have been impossible, not merely inconvenient or financially burdensome (see El-Dehdan, supra).

Defendant cites Domestic Relations Law § 246 and Cassarino v Cassarino, (149 AD3d 689 [2d Dept 2017]), for the proposition that a hearing is required where material issues of fact [*2]exist concerning ability to comply. That principle applies only where the record presents genuine factual disputes as to access to assets or capacity to pay.

Applying these standards, the Court concludes that the October 3, 2025 Decision and Order constitutes a lawful order containing an unequivocal mandate. Defendant's knowledge of that Order is undisputed. Defendant further acknowledges that the lump-sum obligations directed therein have not been paid. Accordingly, Plaintiff has established the existence of a lawful mandate, Defendant's knowledge, and non-compliance.

The Court further concludes that continued non-payment of adjudicated retroactive child support and counsel fees constitutes prejudice to Plaintiff's rights by impairing her ability to enforce the Court's prior financial determinations.

The burden therefore shifts to Defendant to establish inability to comply. Defendant's own sworn Statement of Net Worth establishes ownership of substantial investment, retirement, and real-property assets. Defendant does not allege that these assets are legally inaccessible, frozen, or unavailable for liquidation, borrowing, or application toward satisfaction of court-ordered obligations. Defendant's assertion that payment would be financially burdensome does not establish impossibility. A party may not avoid compliance with a lawful court order by electing to preserve discretionary assets while declining to satisfy judicially imposed obligations (see Matter of Powers, supra).

Because Defendant's own sworn financial disclosures conclusively establish the existence of available assets and no legal inaccessibility, no material factual dispute exists requiring an evidentiary hearing under Domestic Relations Law § 246 or Cassarino v Cassarino, supra. The Court therefore concludes that a hearing is not required.

The Court further concludes that Defendant's failure to comply with the October 3, 2025 Order was willful within the meaning of Judiciary Law § 753 and El-Dehdan v. El-Dehdan, supra.

Plaintiff's request for injunctive relief restraining dissipation of assets is warranted to prevent frustration of enforcement, although the restraint must be reasonably tailored. Plaintiff's request for additional counsel fees is not supported by sufficient documentation to fix an award at this time and is therefore denied without prejudice.

IV. Conclusion and Decretal Paragraphs

Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED, that Defendant VA is adjudged in civil contempt of this Court's Decision and Order dated October 3, 2025, for willful failure to pay court-ordered retroactive child support and counsel fees; and it is further

ORDERED, that Defendant shall purge said contempt by paying $7,947.62 [SEVEN THOUSAND NINE HUNDRED FORTY-SEVEN DOLLARS AND SIXTY-TWO CENTS] in retroactive child support and $37,200.00 [THIRTY SEVEN THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED DOLLARS AND NO CENTS] in counsel fees within forty-five (45) days of the filing of this Decision and Order on NYSCEF; and it is further

ORDERED, that Defendant shall appear in person before this Court on March 25, 2026, at 2:15 PM to report on compliance with this Order; and it is further

ORDERED, that in the event Defendant has failed to fully purge the contempt by the compliance date herein directed, Defendant shall then and there stand before this Court for immediate determination and imposition of appropriate coercive sanctions, including but not limited to commitment, monetary penalties, entry of judgment, or such other enforcement relief [*3]as the Court deems just and proper, without further motion practice; and it is further

ORDERED, that Defendant is restrained from transferring, liquidating, or encumbering any investment, brokerage, or retirement accounts, or conveying any interest in real property, except for ordinary living expenses, until the aforesaid sums are satisfied; and it is further

ORDERED, that Plaintiff's request for additional counsel fees is denied without prejudice to renewal upon proper documentation; and it is further

ORDERED, that all other relief requested is denied except as expressly granted herein.

This constitutes the Decision and Order of the Court.