Justice Louis York
This contempt motion arose from an action for the "struggle for the control of a restaurant" between plaintiffs and defendants. The action was resolved by a judgment of dissolution, but during pendency of the action a bankruptcy action involving defendant Lazarev was pending. A trustee was appointed in Lazarev’s bankruptcy, and the trustee moved for contempt. It was alleged Shvets, in lieu of preserving the assets of the restaurant for their sale by a referee, as required by a court order, proceeded to rid the restaurant of all its assets. Shvets alleged same was done to enforce the court’s order of dissolution. The trustee claimed the actions were a blatant and inexcusable violation of the clear language of the court’s judgment. Plaintiffs argued the court’s judgment was inconsistent and unclear to support a contempt finding. The court found all of the elements necessary for a contempt finding were satisfied as there was no question Shvets knew about the judgment, and her disobedience was blatant, stating the alleged inconsistency was a "red herring." It also noted that while there was ample evidence to support a contempt finding for Shvets, there was insufficient evidence against plaintiff Ivantechenko, denying the motion against him.
