Bennett v. Bennett
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
1Concurrence · MugglinMugglin, J.
We concur in the result reached by
the majority, but would expand the rationale. We agree that our prior decisions require a showing that a remedy less drastic than contempt must be shown to be ineffectual before contempt is appropriate (see e.g. DeMeo v DeMeo, 281 AD2d 662 [enforcement of support]; MacKinnon v MacKinnon, 277 AD2d 636 [enforcement of periodic maintenance and a lump-sum award]; Mastrantoni v Mastrantoni, 242 AD2d 825 [enforcement of payment of debt assumed]). Nevertheless, it is our view that care must be taken to differentiate between what may be an effectual remedy to enforce…
Also in this document: Concurrence · Kane.
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Mastrantoni v. MastrantoniAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1997
- MacKinnon v. MacKinnonAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2000
- DeMeo v. DeMeoAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2001