Orders affirmed, with one bill of costs.
The circumstances of this case and the extensive record before the court fully support its determination to adjudge defendant in contempt (see, Price v Price, 113 A.D.2d 299 [appeal from stated portions of a judgment dated Apr. 19, 1984]). Further, attorney's fees were properly awarded to the plaintiff where it presumptively appeared, to the court's satisfaction, that no other procedure than an application to hold defendant in contempt, to compel compliance with the order of support pendente lite, would be effective, and that defendant was able to make the payments ordered (cf. Johanny v Johanny, 41 A.D.2d 568; see, Price v Price, 115 A.D.2d 530 [appeal from stated portions of an order and judgment dated Sept. 15, 1983]). Mollen, P.J., Mangano, O'Connor and Weinstein, JJ., concur.