failed to return certain items of Respondent Ingram's personal property. The Court notes
that Petitioner has never disputed this allegation, either in their responsive papers or at
argument on this motion. (NYSCEF Doc. 38, at ¶¶ 10-12). Of the inventoried
property (NYSCEF Docs. 40-41), Petitioner allegedly failed to return mattresses and
beds, along with other items, which amount to approximately $1,500 in actual damages
(NYSCEF Doc. 37, at ¶ 29). Respondent Ingram represents that as her family are
without the mattresses, she is forced to sleep on a twin-sized air bed, along with her two
minor children; and her adult son is forced to stay at another address to avoid sleeping on
the floor. (NYSCEF Doc. 38, at ¶ 17). Respondent Ingram proffers that her
attorney contacted Petitioner on May 6, 2025, to report the missing mattresses and
followed-up twice later that day, without receiving any response. (Id. at ¶
16).
After the Court provided the parties an opportunity to respectively submit opposition
and [*3]reply, the motion was fully briefed on May 16,
2025. During argument, counsel for Petitioner did not dispute that the mattresses were
missing, but instead suggested Respondent Ingram travel to the Bronx to retrieve the
property herself. (Record Time: 10:13:00am-10:15:00am, May 16, 2025).
Discussion
At controversy here is whether the Court should exercise
its discretionary power to punish Petitioner for civil contempt in light the alleged
disobedience with the Court's May Decision? The Court holds that it should and finds
that Petitioner is in civil contempt of the May Decision.
Underlying Contempt Law
Civil contempt requires: 1) a determination that a lawful order of the Court, clearly