On July 17, 2025, Justice Schecter of the New York County Commercial Division issued a decision in Talking Capital Windup LLC v. Omanoff, 2025 NY Slip Op. 33072(U), holding that the fact that a court order eventually was reversed is not grounds for vacating contempt orders for disobeying that order, explaining:
The Omanoff Defendants contend that it is well-established that, where, as here, an underlying order or judgment has been vacated, civil contempt orders aimed at inducing the defendant to satisfy the order or judgment must be vacated as well. That is wrong. Obedience to a lawful order of the court is required even if the order is thereafter held erroneous or improvidently made or granted by the court under misapprehension or mistake. That the judgment here was reversed does not warrant vacatur of all of the orders that are the subject of this motion.
The procedural posture of the cases cited by the Omanoff Defendants are not analogous and their holdings are not consistent with how they are portrayed in their moving brief.
The Omanoff Defendants’ reliance on cases such as Gould v Kontogiorge (216 AD3d 563 [1st Dept 2023]) and Moore v Davidson (57 AD3d 862 [2d Dept 2008]) is misplaced as in those cases there was no valid finding of contempt. Here, by contrast, none of the contempt orders were vacated on appeal and, as noted, it is well settled that vacatur of the judgment is no defense to contempt.
This court did not lack jurisdiction to issue the civil contempt orders. The notion that the Omanoff Defendants should be excused for violating judgment-enforcement orders, which were never stayed, contravenes controlling Appellate Division and Court of Appeals authority and, in practice, would invite serious mischief by undermining the rule of law. While the Omanoff Defendants appear to recognize that there is a mountain of precedent that would make challenging the criminal contempt orders difficult, the rule is no different with civil contempt.
The Omanoff Defendants’ reliance on clearly distinguishable cases and failure to recognize numerous contrary controlling cases is troubling.
In light of this decision, which largely rejects the categorial argument made to justify vacating all 22 orders; the procedural wrinkle of there still being other judgments that implicate article 52; plaintiffs’ concessions with respect to some of the orders; and the benefits of having clarity about the exact amount of accrued fines and there no longer being any current civil contempt implications beyond the fees and fines imposed prior to December 12–the parties should confer and, as set forth below, file a joint letter (1) addressing which of the orders should be vacated in accordance with this decision; (2) calculating the total amount of fines (payable to the Clerk) that accrued prior to December 12; and (3) proposing a form of order implementing this decision.
(Internal quotations and citations omitted).