expressing an unequivocal mandate is in effect; 2) a determination "with reasonable
certainty" — essentially meaning proof by clear and convincing evidence —
that the contemnor disobeyed that order; 3) that the contemnor knew of the Court's order;
and 4) the disobedience defeats, impairs, impedes, or prejudices the rights or remedies of
a party. (El-Dehdan v.
El-Dehdan, 26 NY3d 19, 29-35 [2015]; Bd. of Dirs. of Windsor Owners Corp. v. Platt, 148 AD3d
645, 646 [1st Dept.], leave to appeal dismissed, 30 NY3d 986 [2017]). Any
ambiguity in the Court's mandate should be resolved in favor of the would-be contemnor.
(Viacom Outdoor Grp., Inc. v.
McClair, 62 AD3d 864, 865 [2nd Dept. 2009]). Here, no such ambiguity is
present as Petitioner has failed to address how Respondent has not satisfied these
elements of contempt.
Respondent argues that the May Decision expressed an unequivocal mandate to
"restore
all personal property to the subject premises from the
storage unit on or before May 7, 2025, at Petitioner's own expense." (NYSCEF Doc. 33)
(emphasis added). The Court agrees. Petitioner does not dispute that they failed to restore
"all" the personal property, but instead offers reasons for why contempt is procedurally
improper. Petitioner's argument can be summarized into three (3) points: 1) Respondent
failed to file a notice of claim; 2) Respondent failed to comply with the notice
requirements of Judiciary Law §756; and 3) Respondent failed to join necessary
parties in their allegations of contempt, vis-à-vis, the marshal and the
storage facility. All three (3) arguments are unavailing, and in fact have foregoing
supporting precedent to the contrary.
Notice of Claim
Petitioner argues that Respondent Ingram failed to comply with NY Public Housing