with personal knowledge regarding the state of Respondent's personal property or
whether the allegations of contempt are factually untrue. Petitioner opposition, as stated,
is only germane to procedural arguments as to why the Court should not find them in
contempt. When the record on motion practice shows no fact dispute as to the elements
of contempt, the Court may make a finding of contempt without a hearing. (Martin v. Martin, 163 AD3d
1139, 1141 [3rd Dept. 2018]; Speirs v. Leffer, 246 AD2d 590, 590-91 [2nd
Dept. 1998]). A movant for contempt only receives a hearing upon demonstration of "the
existence of an issue . . . ." (Id.). Here, as there is a no factual opposition,
Respondent's proffered facts are deemed to be admitted. (Kuehne & Nagel, Inc.
v. Baiden, 36 NY2d 539, 627 [1975]).
Given that government agencies must still be mindful of their duty to abide by the
terms of a court order (see generally McCain v Dinkins, 192 AD2d 217, 219, 601
NYS2d 271 [1993], mod on other grounds 84 NY2d 216, 639 NE2d 1132, 616
NYS2d 335 [1994]), the Court finds that on this record that Petitioner is in contempt of
Court.
Although unrebutted, there are still issues of fact as to the valuations provided by
Respondent's counsel regarding legal fees and actual damages. Respondent does submit
indicia of potential losses by arguing that the "missing mattresses cost . . . roughly $1,500
. . . but Respondent could replace the mattresses with $1,200", (NYSCEF Doc. 37, at
¶ 23), however no [*6]other evidence has been
introduced on this claim, and thus a factual question remains. That said, Respondent's
interpretation of Judiciary Law §773 is correct in that "counsel fees and other
professional fees are properly included in an award to a complainant as 'reasonable and