07-2-7795 Putrino v. Rizzo, App. Div. (per curiam) (5 pp.) Defendants appeal from an order dated January 23, 2009. The dispositive issue is whether the trial judge properly made a Rule 1:10-3 determination that defendants were in “willful violation” of an order at a time when the determination could not serve as a coercive measure to facilitate the enforcement of a court order. The appellate panel finds the language of contempt did not belong in a prior order dated November 21, and therefore affirms that portion of the order of January 23 striking the reference to contempt in the earlier order. Modification is necessary with respect to the substituted language because its insertion in the order of January 23 was unnecessary and therefore improper. By January 23, Rizzo and his attorney had fully complied with the November 21 order. Since the January 23 order was thus not issued as a coercive measure to obtain enforcement of an order, there was no reason for including therein as an amendment to the earlier order a finding of “willful violation.” The order should be modified so as to not to include that language.
