Gregg v. Chen

220 A.D.3d 695

197 N.Y.S.3d 287

R.A. GREGG, etc., appellant, et al., plaintiff,

v.Lan Zhen CHEN, et al., respondents.

2021–00407

Index No. 100052/19

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Submitted—April 17, 2023

October 4, 2023

R.A. Gregg, Staten Island, NY, appellant pro se.

The Law Offices of Perry Ian Tischler, P.C., Bayside, NY, for respondents.

VALERIE BRATHWAITE NELSON, J.P., ROBERT J. MILLER, WILLIAM G. FORD, DEBORAH A. DOWLING, JJ.

DECISION & ORDER

In an action to recover damages for breach of bailment and intentional infliction of emotional distress, the plaintiff R.A. Gregg appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Catherine M. DiDomenico), dated December 22, 2020. The order, insofar as appealed from, denied that plaintiff's motion, inter alia, for a declaration that an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Richmond County (Kimberly S. Slade, J.), dated August 29, 2019, was invalid, and denied, without a hearing, his separate motion to hold the defendants in civil and criminal contempt for failure to comply with an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Wayne M. Ozzi, J.), dated July 21, 2020.

ORDERED that the order dated December 22, 2020, is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The defendants are the former landlords of the plaintiff R.A. Gregg. The plaintiffs commenced this action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of bailment based on the defendants allegedly damaging or removing personal property remaining on the premises following Gregg's eviction in August 2019. In an order dated July 21, 2020, the Supreme Court temporarily enjoined the defendants from discarding or removing the plaintiffs’ personal property to the extent it remained at the premises, pending hearing and determination of Gregg's motion for injunctive relief (hereinafter the TRO). On or about August 11, 2020, Gregg moved to hold the defendants in civil and criminal contempt for violating the TRO. By order dated August 20, 2020, the court, among other things, vacated the TRO and denied Gregg's motion for injunctive relief. The court determined, inter alia, that there was no basis to enjoin the defendants from discarding any of the plaintiffs’ personal property remaining on the premises, as the defendants had been expressly granted the authority to do so pursuant to an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York dated August 29, 2019 (hereinafter the Civil Court order).

In an order dated December 22, 2020, the Supreme Court, inter alia, denied, without a hearing, Gregg's motion to hold the defendants in civil and criminal contempt, and denied his separate motion, among other things, for a declaration that the Civil Court order was invalid. Gregg appeals from the order dated December 22, 2020.

"A motion to punish a party for civil contempt is addressed to the sound discretion of the motion court" ( Bongiorno v. Di Frisco, 196 A.D.3d 452, 454, 151 N.Y.S.3d 413 [internal quotation marks omitted]). "To support a finding of civil contempt, the moving party bears the burden of proving, by clear and convincing evidence, (1) that a lawful order of the court was in effect, clearly expressing an unequivocal mandate, (2) the appearance, with reasonable certainty, that the order was disobeyed, (3) that the party to be held in contempt had knowledge of the court's order, and (4) prejudice to the right of a party to the litigation" ( Integrity Real Estate Consultants v. Re/Max of N.Y., Inc., 213 A.D.3d 815, 820, 185 N.Y.S.3d 160 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see El–Dehdan v. El–Dehdan, 26 N.Y.3d 19, 29, 19 N.Y.S.3d 475, 41 N.E.3d 340 ). "The imposition of punishment for criminal contempt similarly requires a showing that the alleged contemnor violated a clear and unequivocal court mandate" ( Venables v. Rovegno, 195 A.D.3d 879, 880, 145 N.Y.S.3d 834 [internal quotation marks omitted]). "[A]n essential element of criminal contempt is willful disobedience" ( Ruffino v. Serio, 206 A.D.3d 776, 777, 167 N.Y.S.3d 819 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Venables v. Rovegno, 195 A.D.3d 879, 145 N.Y.S.3d 834 ). "In contrast to civil contempt, because the purpose of criminal contempt is to vindicate the authority of the court, no showing of prejudice is required" ( Madigan v. Berkeley Capital, LLC, 205 A.D.3d 900, 905–906, 169 N.Y.S.3d 326 ; see Matter of Department of Envtl. Protection of City of N.Y....