Rose, J.
Appeals (1) from an order of the Supreme Court (Dawson, J.), entered January 14, 2000 in Essex County, which, inter alia, found third-party defendant in civil contempt, and (2) from an order of said court, entered February 3, 2000 in Essex County, which imposed a fine upon third-party defendant.
Although this Court ultimately reversed the pertinent provision of Supreme Court's summary judgment order, Gardner concedes that it had not been reversed, stayed or vacated at the time defendant's contempt motion was granted. As "[a]n order of the court must be obeyed even if erroneously made, so long as the court has jurisdiction, and the order was not void on its face" (Matter of Bickwid v. Deutsch, 229 A.D.2d 533, 534-535, lv denied 89 N.Y.2d 802), Gardner could not disregard the order with impunity. While it is true that CPLR 5015 (a) (5) authorizes a court to relieve an affected party from an order once it is reversed, an application for such relief must be made to the court that issued the order (see, Commissioner of Labor of State of N.Y. v. Hinman, 103 A.D.2d 886, 886; Hrouda v. Winne, 77 A.D.2d 62, 64-65; Brenner v. Arterial Plaza, 29 A.D.2d 815, 815-816). Gardner made no such application.
Gardner also argues that the fine imposed should be set aside because its amount is unreasonable. "Any penalty imposed [for civil contempt] is designed not to punish but, rather, to compensate the injured private party or to coerce compliance with the court's mandate or both * * *" (Matter of Department of Envtl. Protection of City of N.Y. v. Department of Envtl. Conservation of State of N.Y., 70 N.Y.2d 233, 239 [citations omitted]; see, McCain v. Dinkins, 84 N.Y.2d 216, 226). In addition to the statutory maximum of $250 that may be imposed where no actual loss or injury is shown to have occurred, "`reasonable counsel fees which are incurred in connection with an application to punish another for contempt are properly included as an item of the aggrieved party's "costs and expenses"'" (Costanza v. Costanza, 213 A.D.2d 1043, 1044, quotingGlanzman v. Fischman, 143 A.D.2d 880, 881, lv dismissed 74 N.Y.2d 792). Since the record contains undisputed evidence of the amount of fees incurred by defendant, Supreme Court's award of that amount was proper (see, Sager Spuck Statewide Supply Co. v. Meyer, 282 A.D.2d 971, 973).
Crew III, J.P., Peters, Mugglin and Lahtinen, JJ., concur.
ORDERED that the orders are affirmed, with costs.