On March 25, 2026, the Second Department issued a decision in Yong Hong Xie v. Lan Chen, 2026 NY Slip Op. 01819, holding that a motion for contempt should be denied because of the failure to give the required notice, explaining:
The Supreme Court should have granted that branch of the defendants’ motion which was to vacate so much of the December 2022 order as conditionally held the defendants in contempt. Pursuant to Judiciary Law § 756, a contempt application must be in writing, must be made upon at least 10 days’ notice, and must contain on its face the statutory warning that “FAILURE TO APPEAR IN COURT MAY RESULT IN YOUR IMMEDIATE ARREST AND IMPRISONMENT FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT.” Here, among other things, the defendants were never provided with the warning required by Judiciary Law § 756. Further, an order requiring the performance of an act may not include an additional clause stating that in default thereof, the party will be guilty of contempt of court.
The Supreme Court also should have granted that branch of the defendants’ motion which was to vacate so much of the December 2022 order as conditionally imposed sanctions upon the defendants and their counsel. A court does not have the authority to impose a penalty or sanction absent enabling legislation or court rule authorizing the penalty or sanction. Here, the court cited to no legislation or court rule to support the imposition of sanctions. To the extent that the court relied upon 22 NYCRR 130-1.1, it should not have done so. Among other reasons, the December 2022 order did not set forth the conduct on which the imposition of sanctions was based and the reason why the court found the conduct to be frivolous.
(Internal quotations and citations omitted).