DUNN v. DUNN, JR

Ordered that the appeal from the amended qualified domestic relations order dated January 8, 2010, is dismissed, as no appeal lies as of right from a qualified domestic relations order ( see Bernstein v Bernstein, 18 AD3d 683, 683-684; Gormley v Gormley, 238 AD2d 545, 546), and we decline to grant leave to appeal sua sponte; and it is further,

Ordered that the order dated November 7, 2009, is affirmed insofar as appealed from; and it is further,

Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to the nonparty-respondent.

A court may punish for civil contempt any disobedience of a lawful judicial order expressing an unequivocal mandate ( see McCain v Dinkins, 84 NY2d 216, 226; Matter of McCormick v Axelrod, 59 NY2d 574, 583; Biggio v Biggio, 41 AD3d 753, 754), whenever the rights or remedies of a party to a civil action may be defeated, impaired, impeded, or prejudiced ( see Judiciary Law § 753 [A] [3]; Matter of Department of Envtl. Protection of City of N.Y. v Department of Envtl. Conservation of State of N.Y., 70 NY2d 233, 239-240; Casavecchia v Mizrahi, 57 AD3d 702, 703; Incorporated Vil. of Plandome Manor v Ioannou, 54 AD3d 365, 366; Dankner v Steefel, 41 AD3d 526, 528; Orange County-Poughkeepsie Ltd. Partnership v Bonte, 37 AD3d 684, 686). Here, the Supreme Court properly found that the plaintiff met her burden of proving, by clear and convincing evidence, that the nonparty-respondent violated a lawful and unequivocal mandate, i.e., the implementation of the qualified domestic relations order, of which it had knowledge, and in so doing, impaired and prejudiced the plaintiffs rights ( see Biggio v Biggio, 41 AD3d at 754; Freihofner v Freihofner, 39 AD3d' 465, 466 [2007]; Raphael v Raphael, 20 AD3d 463, 464).

Inasmuch as there was no evidence of an unmitigated actual loss or injury to the plaintiff "by reason of the misconduct" of the nonparty-respondent, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in imposing a fine equal to the statutory sum of $250 and in denying the plaintiffs request for compensatory damages (Judiciary Law § 773; see Matter of Barclays Bank v Hughes, 306 AD2d 406, 408; Berkowitz v Astro Moving Stor. Co., 240 AD2d 450, 452).

The plaintiffs remaining contentions are without merit.