ORDERED that the appeal from the order dated April 4, 2001, is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, as that order was superseded by the order dated April 10, 2001; and it is further,
ORDERED that the orders dated August 23, 2000, April 10, 2001, July 5, 2001, and October 17, 2001, are affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
It is well settled that a finding of civil contempt, predicated upon a violation of a court order, must be based upon a determination that there existed a lawful court order expressing an "unequivocal mandate," that the person to be held in contempt of such order had actual knowledge of its terms, and that the offending conduct "defeated, impaired, impeded, or prejudiced" a right or remedy of the complaining party (see McCain v. Dinkins, 84 N.Y.2d 216, 226; Matter of McCormick v. Axelrod, 59 N.Y.2d 574, 583; Matter of Hoglund v. Hoglund, 234 A.D.2d 794; Paulmann v. Paulmann, 224 A.D.2d 891, 892). The Supreme Court properly found that the plaintiff was in contempt of court, as the plaintiff impeded the defendant's efforts to comply with the provisions of the judgment of divorce entered August 16, 2000, which required the parties to sell a piece of property located at 23-14 Broadway in Astoria, Queens.
The plaintiff's remaining contentions are without merit.
FEUERSTEIN, J.P., SMITH, FRIEDMANN and ADAMS, JJ., concur.