The challenges to the orders appointing the receiver and authorizing her actions are moot since all of the receivership assets are now in the control of a Federally appointed bankruptcy trustee. Under Bankruptcy Code (11 USC) §§ 323, 1106 and 1108, defendant is no longer aggrieved by orders affecting the property in the bankruptcy estate, and the trustee is the representative of the entire estate (see, In re Weston, 18 F.3d 860, 863). In any event, the receivership orders were all properly made in view of the demonstrated waste and mismanagement of the Westchester County horse ventures (see, Sandfield v. Goldstein, 29 A.D.2d 999).
Findings of contempt were justified by defendant's mere disobedience of the pendente lite injunctions, which are not directly challenged on appeal and with which defendant was required to comply (see, Matter of Bonnie H., 145 A.D.2d 830, 831, lv dismissed 74 N.Y.2d 650), such disobedience having plainly defeated, impeded, impaired or prejudiced plaintiff's rights, and it being undisputed that defendant elected to disobey the injunctions (see, Walter Doors v. Greenberg, 151 A.D.2d 550).
The issue of whether defendant's imprisonment was impermissibly punitive was rendered moot by his release. In any event, the arrest was properly made to prevent defendant from continuing the "globe-trotting" activities (see, De Bierre v. Darvas, 24 A.D.2d 858, 859, appeal dismissed 17 N.Y.2d 576) and deceitful conduct (see, Bon-R Reproductions v. Markowitz, 83 Misc.2d 856) he had been engaging in for months to evade his obligations to the court.
The IAS Court correctly found a triable issue of fact as to the validity of the marriage (see, e.g., Busk v. Busk, 18 A.D.2d 700). There was insufficient evidence to hold, as a matter of law, that the parties' Haitian marriage was void. Furthermore, the right to assert the invalidity of a marriage as a result of a defect in a foreign divorce decree "becomes clouded when the defendant who seeks to assert such affirmative defense obtained, or aided in obtaining, the foreign decree" (Beavers v. Beavers, 11 Misc.2d 247, 249, mot to dismiss appeal granted 6 A.D.2d 1041). Accordingly, even at trial, there is room to doubt that defendant will be able to employ, as a sword, a defective divorce decree for which he himself is responsible.
We have considered defendant's remaining arguments and find them to be without merit.
Concur — Rosenberger, J.P., Ellerin, Wallach, Kupferman and Mazzarelli, JJ.