CONNERS v. Stephen Bennett et al., Respondents. (1997)

Appeals (1) from an order of the Supreme Court (Moynihan Jr., J.), entered September 13, 1995 in Warren County, upon a decision of the court in favor of Stephen Bennett and Shaunna Bennett, and (2) from the judgment entered thereon.

 In our view, the evidence in this case establishes “with reasonable certainty” (Matter of McCormick v. Axelrod, 59 N.Y.2d 574, 583, 466 N.Y.S.2d 279, 453 N.E.2d 508, amended 60 N.Y.2d 652, 467 N.Y.S.2d 571, 454 N.E.2d 1314) that defendants have violated a prior order of Supreme Court by interfering with the clear right of plaintiffs' successors in interest, Stephen Bennett and Shaunna Bennett, to enjoy unhindered access to and from a 16-foot-wide easement over a strip of land owned in fee by defendants, their adjoining neighbors, in the Town of Queensbury, Warren County (see, Matter of Beers v. Beers, 220 A.D.2d 839, 841, 632 N.Y.S.2d 257;  Wolski v. De Luca, 112 A.D.2d 220, 221, 490 N.Y.S.2d 869).   Contrary to defendants' claim on appeal, a finding of civil contempt (see, Judiciary Law § 753[A] [3] ) does not require a showing that such disobedience was willful (see, Matter of McCormick v. Axelrod, supra, at 583, 466 N.Y.S.2d 279, 453 N.E.2d 508;  Italian American Civic Assn. of Mineola, N.Y. v. Cataldo, 225 A.D.2d 733, 639 N.Y.S.2d 944, lv. dismissed 88 N.Y.2d 1065, 651 N.Y.S.2d 408, 674 N.E.2d 338;  Matter of Spinnenweber v New York State Dept. of Envtl. Conservation, 160 A.D.2d 1138, 1140, 554 N.Y.S.2d 346).

We have examined defendants' remaining arguments, including their claim that the easement was abandoned, and find them to be wholly devoid of merit and/or improperly before this court.

ORDERED that the order and judgment are affirmed, with costs.

CARDONA, Presiding Justice.

MIKOLL, CREW, CASEY and YESAWICH, JJ., concur.