Ordered that the orders and judgments are affirmed, with one bill of costs.
In an order and judgment dated October 19, 2009, the Supreme Court, inter alia, imposed fines based upon its order dated March 13, 2006, among other things, holding the plaintiff in civil and criminal contempt for violating a temporary restraining order of the same court dated January 19, 2006. Those findings of civil and criminal contempt were upheld by this Court on the plaintiffs prior appeal from an order dated March 13, 2006 ( see Rose v Levine, 37 AD3d 691, 693). Therefore, the plaintiffs current challenge to the Supreme Court's finding of criminal contempt for violation of the temporary restraining order dated January 19, 2006, has already been determined to be without merit.
In the order and judgment dated October 19, 2009, the Supreme Court also granted that branch of the motion of the defendant Robert Levine (hereinafter Levine) which was to hold the plaintiff in civil contempt for his willful violation of a preliminary injunction in the order dated March 13, 2006. To prevail on a motion to punish for civil contempt, the movant must establish, by clear and convincing evidence (1) that a lawful order of the court, clearly expressing an unequivocal mandate, was in effect, (2) that the order was disobeyed and the party disobeying the order had knowledge of its terms, and (3) that the movant was prejudiced by the offending conduct ( see Coyle v Coyle, 63 AD3d 657, 658; Kalish v Lindsay, 47 AD3d 889, 891; Galanos v Galanos, 46 AD3d 507, 508; Biggio v Biggio, 41 AD3d 753, 753-754; Gloveman Realty Corp. v Jefferys, 29 AD3d 858, 859). Here, Levine met his burden ( see Galanos v Galanos, 46 AD3d at 508; Casavecchia v Mizrahi, 57 AD3d 702, 703-704). Therefore, the Supreme Court correctly granted that branch of Levine's motion which was to hold the plaintiff in civil contempt.
The plaintiffs challenges to the amount of the civil fine imposed in the order and judgment dated February 3, 2010, are improperly raised for the first time on appeal or are without merit. The Supreme Court properly imposed a fine which included the reasonable counsel fees incurred by Levine in connection with the plaintiffs civil contempt, and the amount of the fine is fully supported by the evidence in the record ( see Sager Spuck Statewide Supply Co. v Meyer, 282 AD2d 971, 973; Glanzman v Fischman, 143 AD2d 880, 881; Judiciary Law § 773).
The plaintiffs remaining contentions are without merit.