"Civil contempt seeks vindication for individuals who have been injured or harmed by [a] contemnor's failure to obey a court order. A civil contempt penalty is imposed not to punish but, rather, to compensate the injured private party or to coerce compliance with the court's mandate" (Matter of Department of Hous. Preserv. & Dev. of City of NY v Deka Realty Corp., 208 AD2d 37, 42 [1995] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; see El-Dehdan v El-Dehdan, 26 NY3d 19 [2015]; State of New York v Unique Ideas, 44 NY2d 345, 349 [1978]).

In the order entered September 22, 2014, the court noted that it was undisputed that tenant had paid the arrears on September 19, 2014 and directed tenant to provide access to the premises on particular days and specific times for landlord to make the necessary repairs to restore the premises to a habitable condition. It appears from Jeremias's affidavit, submitted in opposition to the contempt motion, and it is undisputed by tenant, that all the work was completed as of January 20, 2015.

At the outset we note that, since tenant failed to timely make the payment required by the September 4, 2014 conditional order, there was no violation of the order requiring restoration of the premises.

While tenant argues that an agent can be held liable for its principal's contempt, here Jeremias was not named in the September 22, 2014 order allegedly violated and this order was not served upon him. Thus, there is no basis to punish Jeremias for contempt thereof (see Korea Chosun Daily Times, Inc. v Dough Boy Donuts Corp, 129 AD3d 918 [2015]; cf. Citibank, N.A. v Anthony Lincoln-Mercury, 86 AD2d 828 [1982]).