Opinion
March 11, 1993
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Beatrice Shainswit, J.).
In light of defendant's knowledge of the unambiguous court orders of preliminary and permanent injunction, his unequivocal and repeated willful disobedience of said orders and the resulting prejudice to plaintiff as a result of defendant's intentional conduct, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding defendant in civil and criminal contempt (Matter of McCormick v. Axelrod, 59 N.Y.2d 574, amended 60 N.Y.2d 652; Matter of Department of Envtl. Protection v. Department of Envtl. Conservation, 70 N.Y.2d 233). Indeed, the scheme by which defendant divorced his wife and transferred control of his business to her in order to circumvent the court-ordered injunctions evinces defendant's willful disregard of the court's order warranting a finding of criminal contempt.
Defendant's claim that the contempt order is vague is without merit. The order sufficiently apprises defendant of the conduct which resulted in the finding of contempt, what conduct is forbidden and what defendant need do in order to attempt to purge himself of contempt.
Finally, we note that the order improperly but harmlessly refers to Penal Law § 215.50 since a violation of said section of the Penal Law is an indictable offense and defendant has not been indicted for such an offense. Accordingly, the reference in the order to Penal Law § 215.50 is deleted and in its place is substituted Judiciary Law § 750, the appropriate statute concerning criminal contempt.
We have considered all other claims and find them to be of no merit.
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Milonas, Asch and Rubin, JJ.