TANG v. TANG (2026)

Appeal from order, Supreme Court, New York County (Jennifer G. Schecter, J.), entered January 23, 2026, which ordered defendant to remit $20,000 to plaintiff's counsel in connection with plaintiff's contempt motion deemed an appeal from an order, same court and Justice, entered on January 14, 2026, granting plaintiff's motion for a finding of civil contempt against defendant and awarding plaintiff reasonable costs and attorneys' fees for bringing the motion, unanimously affirmed, with costs.  Appeal from order, entered January 23, 2026, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as abandoned.

Plaintiff demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that defendant did not comply with the court's order, dated November 18, 2025, requiring him to add plaintiff as an authorized representative on the company bank accounts and to facilitate reactivation of the accounts by November 25, 2025 (Judiciary Law § 753[A][3];  El–Dehdan v El–Dehdan, 26 NY3d 19, 29, 35 [2015] ).  Despite several messages between counsel before and after the deadline, defendant did not prepare a joint letter to be signed and notarized by plaintiff until after plaintiff moved for relief.  The inability of plaintiff to access the accounts and the continued freeze prejudiced plaintiff's rights, both individually and derivatively (see Board of Directors of Windsor Owners Corp. v Platt, 148 AD3d 645, 646 [1st Dept 2017], lv dismissed 30 NY3d 986 [2017] ).

Plaintiff also demonstrated a violation of the November 18, 2025 order, to the extent that Supreme Court (Schecter, J.) had directed the parties to comply with their prior settlement agreement.  Defendant admits that he posted statements about plaintiff on social media, and the text thereof demonstrates that defendant disparaged plaintiff without his consent in contravention of the settlement terms.  The finding of civil contempt is appropriate “regardless of the contemnor's motive” (Board of Directors of Windsor Owners Corp., 148 AD3d at 646, quoting El–Dehdan, 26 NY3d at 35;  accord Cassarino v Cassarino, 149 AD3d 689, 691 [2d Dept 2017] ).

We have considered defendant's remaining arguments and find them unavailing.