DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The judgment of divorce in this action, which awarded the plaintiff sole custody of the parties' two children, provides, among other things, that the parties are to divide the summer vacation period equally, so that it consists of alternating two-week periods. The defendant moved to hold the plaintiff in civil contempt of this provision based on her alleged refusal to permit the defendant visitation with his younger daughter during the summer of 2001.
The party seeking to hold another in civil contempt bears the burden of proof (see McCain v. Dinkins, 84 N.Y.2d 216, 227). To prevail, "the movant must demonstrate that the party charged violated a clear and unequivocal court order, thereby prejudicing a right of another party to the litigation" (Matter of County of Orange v. Rodriguez, 283 A.D.2d 494, 495; see McCain v. Dinkins, supra; Judiciary Law § 753[A]). Here, the defendant did not meet his burden. Accordingly, denial of the defendant's motion to adjudicate the plaintiff in civil contempt and for other relief based on the allegation of contempt was proper.
SANTUCCI, J.P., LUCIANO, TOWNES and RIVERA, JJ., concur.