Appellants' argument that plaintiff did not comply with the notice requirements of CPLR 2221 (a) and 2214 (a), in seeking vacatur of the prior order and judgment of the same Justice, which found appellants in contempt but deferred the imposition of financial penalties, is unpreserved for appellate review, appellants having fully participated in the allegedly defective proceedings without raising such objection ( see, Markonic v Leroy, 167 A.D.2d 713), and we decline to consider it. We have considered appellants' other arguments, including that the IAS Court did not make findings satisfying the requirements of Judiciary Law §§ 750 and 753 and therefore justifying adjudications of civil and criminal contempt, and find them to be without merit.
Concur — Wallach, J.P., Rubin, Williams and Andrias, JJ.