Marvin v. Kilmer

Memorandum: Family Court properly found respondent-petitioner (father) in contempt of court based upon his willful violation of a prior order directing the return of the parties’ son to the custody of petitioner-respondent (mother). “A careful review of the evidence, both direct and circumstantial, fully supports [the court’s finding that the father willfully] violated a clear and unequivocal mandate of the court” (Labanowski v Labanowski, 4 AD3d 690, 694 [2004]). The evidence establishes that the father was aware of the terms of the prior order and, in 1256 the court’s words, “he put in motion the events which resulted in the child being removed from [the mother’s] home and placed in [the father’s] home” (see Matter of Daniels v Guntert, 256 AD2d 940, 942 [1998]). We reject the father’s further contention that the court erred in conducting a confidential interview with the parties’ daughter (see generally Matter of Lincoln v Lincoln, 24 NY2d 270, 272 [1969]) and, in any event, there is no indication that the court relied on that interview in rendering its decision herein (see Matter of Bernelle P., 45 NY2d 937, 938 [1978]). Present — Centra, J.P, Fahey, Peradotto, Garni and Sconiers, JJ.