Supreme Court, Appellate Division, 
Second Department, New York.

Thomas TROIANO, Appellant,
v.
Alfonso A. ILARIA, Respondent, et al., Defendants.


June 27, 1994.

 Ralph A. Hummel, Huntington, for appellant.

 Kirschenbaum & Kirschenbaum, P.C., Garden City (Ira Levine, of counsel), for 
respondent.


 *752 In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for fraud, the plaintiff 
appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Gowan, J.), entered 
November 13, 1992, which, after a hearing, denied his motion to punish the 
defendant Alfonso A. Ilaria for civil and criminal contempt.

 ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

 To succeed on a motion to punish for civil contempt, the moving party must show 
that the alleged contemnor has violated a clear and unequivocal court order and 
that the violation prejudiced a right of a party to the litigation (see, McCain 
v. Dinkins, 84 N.Y.2d 216, 616 N.Y.S.2d 335, 639 N.E.2d 1132; JC Mfg. Corp. v. 
NPI Elec., 179 A.D.2d 721, 578 N.Y.S.2d 620;  Judiciary Law §  753[A][3] ).  
While the plaintiff's claim that the respondent disobeyed the temporary 
restraining order finds support in the record, the plaintiff has failed to 
demonstrate how the infractions complained of compromised his rights (see, City 
of Poughkeepsie v. Hetey, 121 A.D.2d 496, 503 N.Y.S.2d 589; Powell v. Clauss, 93 
A.D.2d 883, 461 N.Y.S.2d 413).   Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly 
exercised its discretion in denying *753 the branch of the plaintiff's motion 
which was to punish the respondent for civil contempt.

 Moreover, the record does not indicate that the respondent's conduct in 
disobeying the order rose to the level of willfulness which would support a 
finding of criminal contempt (see, Matter of McCormick v. Axelrod, 59 N.Y.2d 
574, 583, 466 N.Y.S.2d 279, 453 N.E.2d 508;  Judiciary Law §  750[A][3] ).


 O'BRIEN, J.P., and PIZZUTO, JOY and KRAUSMAN, JJ., concur.

614 N.Y.S.2d 916 (Mem), 205 A.D.2d 752

END OF DOCUMENT