Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
To succeed on a motion to punish for civil contempt, the moving party must show that the alleged contemnor has violated a clear and unequivocal court order and that the violation prejudiced a right of a party to the litigation (see, McCain v. Dinkins, 84 N.Y.2d 216; JC Mfg. Corp. v. NPI Elec., 179 A.D.2d 721; Judiciary Law § 753 [A] [3]). While the plaintiff's claim that the respondent disobeyed the temporary restraining order finds support in the record, the plaintiff has failed to demonstrate how the infractions complained of compromised his rights (see, City of Poughkeepsie v. Hetey, 121 A.D.2d 496; Powell v. Clauss, 93 A.D.2d 883). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly exercised its discretion in denying the branch of the plaintiff's motion which was to punish the respondent for civil contempt.
Moreover, the record does not indicate that the respondent's conduct in disobeying the order rose to the level of willfulness which would support a finding of criminal contempt (see, Matter of McCormick v. Axelrod, 59 N.Y.2d 574, 583; Judiciary Law § 750 [A] [3]). O'Brien, J.P., Pizzuto, Joy and Krausman, JJ., concur.