Legal Opinion

Bennett v. Bennett

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Decided January 16, 2003Published

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

  1. Mastrantoni v. MastrantoniAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1997
  2. MacKinnon v. MacKinnonAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2000
  3. DeMeo v. DeMeoAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2001

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API