What did the court decide?

The appellate court vacated the contempt finding against the wife because the earlier order did not set a deadline for transferring funds and the trial court did not make required findings that her actions impaired the husband's rights.

Who is affected by this decision?

The immediate parties, Laura Roberson-Fisch (the wife) and Michael Fisch (the husband), are affected because the contempt judgment against the wife has been vacated.

Does this mean the wife won the whole appeal?

No. The court vacated the contempt finding but otherwise affirmed the lower court's order as to matters not challenged in the appeal.

Can this decision be appealed further?

Potentially, a party could seek further review by the Court of Appeals if leave is available, but the slip opinion notes prior leave was dismissed in related proceedings.

Roberson-Fisch v. Fisch

Docket Index No. 365061/22|Appeal No. 6451|Case No. 2025-05741|

Court of record · Indexed in NoticeRegistry archive · AI-enriched for research

CivilVacated

Filed: Apr 23, 2026 · 1 week ago
Jurisdiction: New York
Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Type: Opinion
Case type: Civil
Disposition: Vacated
Citation: 2026 NY Slip Op 02476
Docket numbers: Index No365061/22Appeal No6451Case No2025-05741

Appeal from an order of Supreme Court, New York County, granting defendant's motion and finding plaintiff in civil contempt for failure to comply with this Court's March 20, 2025 order

Summary

The Appellate Division, First Department reviewed a contempt finding against plaintiff-wife for allegedly failing to transfer funds under this Court's March 20, 2025 order. The court held that the contempt adjudication was an improvident exercise of discretion and vacated the contempt finding because the prior order lacked a clear deadline for transfer and the motion court did not make required findings that the wife's conduct impaired the husband's rights. The court otherwise affirmed the lower court's order as to issues not challenged on appeal.

Issues Decided

Whether the contempt finding against the wife was supported where the underlying appellate order did not specify a deadline for transferring funds
Whether the motion court made the statutory and required factual recitals that the wife's conduct defeated, impaired, impeded, or prejudiced the husband's rights or remedies

Court's Reasoning

The court concluded the March 20, 2025 order lacked the clear and unequivocal mandate necessary to sustain a civil contempt finding because it did not set a deadline to transfer funds. In addition, the motion court failed to make the required finding or recital that the wife's conduct was calculated to, or actually did, defeat or impair the husband's rights as required by statute and precedent. Those defects rendered the contempt determination an improvident exercise of discretion, so the contempt was vacated while other aspects of the order were left intact.

Authorities Cited

Roberson-Fisch v Fisch236 AD3d 554 (1st Dept 2025), lv dismissed 44 NY3d 1075 (2026)
Spathis v Spathis174 AD3d 407 (1st Dept 2019)
Judiciary Law § 753(A)(3) and § 770

Parties

Plaintiff-Appellant: Laura Roberson-Fisch
Defendant-Respondent: Michael Fisch
Judge: Jeffrey H. Pearlman

Key Dates

Appellate decision date: 2026-04-23
Lower court order entered (approx.): 2025-08-26
Appellate order referenced: 2025-03-20

What You Should Do Next

1
Review and, if needed, clarify the underlying order
The parties or the trial court should clarify or amend the March 20, 2025 order to specify any deadlines or obligations precisely if enforcement is intended.
2
If enforcement is sought, seek a new motion with required findings
If the husband seeks contempt again, he should move with evidence and request that the trial court make the statutory findings and recitals showing impairment of rights.
3
Consult counsel about further appellate options
Either party who believes further review is warranted should consult their lawyer about seeking leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals or other relief.

Frequently Asked Questions

What did the court decide?: The appellate court vacated the contempt finding against the wife because the earlier order did not set a deadline for transferring funds and the trial court did not make required findings that her actions impaired the husband's rights.
Who is affected by this decision?: The immediate parties, Laura Roberson-Fisch (the wife) and Michael Fisch (the husband), are affected because the contempt judgment against the wife has been vacated.
Does this mean the wife won the whole appeal?: No. The court vacated the contempt finding but otherwise affirmed the lower court's order as to matters not challenged in the appeal.
Can this decision be appealed further?: Potentially, a party could seek further review by the Court of Appeals if leave is available, but the slip opinion notes prior leave was dismissed in related proceedings.

The above suggestions and answers are AI-generated for informational purposes only. They may contain errors. NoticeRegistry assumes no responsibility for their accuracy. Consult a qualified attorney before relying on them.

Full Filing Text

Roberson-Fisch v Fisch - 2026 NY Slip Op 02476

Roberson-Fisch v Fisch

2026 NY Slip Op 02476

April 23, 2026

Appellate Division, First Department

Laura Roberson-Fisch, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v

Michael Fisch, Defendant-Respondent.

Decided and Entered: April 23, 2026

Index No. 365061/22|Appeal No. 6451|Case No. 2025-05741|

Before: Scarpulla, J.P., Friedman, Gesmer, Shulman, Chan, JJ.

Mosberg Sharma Stambleck Gross LLP, New York (Jonathan W. Wolfe of counsel), for appellant.

Cohen Clair Lans Greifer & Simpson LLP, New York (Robert Stephen Cohen of counsel), for respondent.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Jeffrey H. Pearlman, J.), entered on or about August 26, 2025, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted defendant's motion and held plaintiff in contempt for her failure to comply with this Court's order dated March 20, 2025 (
Roberson-Fisch v Fisch
, 236 AD3d 554 [1st Dept 2025],
lv dismissed
44 NY3d 1075 [2026]), unanimously modified, on the law, the motion denied, the finding of contempt vacated, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

Although the contempt has been purged, the appeal is not moot because the adjudication itself may carry potential enduring consequences (
see Behan v Kornstein
, 164 AD3d 1113, 1116 [1st Dept 2018],
lv denied and dismissed
32 NY3d 1078 [2018];
Matter of April G. v Duane M.
, 105 AD3d 491, 491 [1st Dept 2013]).

The court's determination holding the wife in contempt was an improvident exercise of discretion for two reasons. First, this Court's March 20, 2025 order did not specify any deadline for transferring the funds and therefore lacked the clear and unequivocal mandate required to support a civil contempt finding (
see Spathis v Spathis
, 174 AD3d 407, 408 [1st Dept 2019];
Matter of Lipsig [Manus]
, 139 AD3d 600, 601 [1st Dept 2016];
Monaco v Monaco
, 116 AD3d 452, 453 [1st Dept 2014];
Matter of Serena W. [Daniels-Wiltshire]
, 218 AD3d 597, 599 [2d Dept 2023]). Second, the motion court order finding the wife in contempt did not make the required finding that the wife's conduct was calculated to or actually did defeat, impair, impede, or prejudice the rights or remedies of the husband (
see
Judiciary Law § 753[A][3];
Legacy Org., Inc. v Nomellini
, 221 AD3d 487, 488 [1st Dept 2023];
Clinton Corner H.D.F.C. v Lavergne
, 279 AD2d 339, 341 [1st Dept 2001]), and did not make a recital to that effect (
see
Judiciary Law § 770;
Farkas v Farkas
, 209 AD2d 316, 319 [1st Dept 1994]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER
OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: April 23, 2026