failing to restore the apartment to a habitable condition, as the premises had by then been
restored to a habitable condition.
On appeal, tenant argues that the branch of the motion seeking to punish landlord and
Jeremias for civil contempt for failing to restore the apartment to a habitable condition was not
"moot," as she had been without a kitchen and bathroom for several months.
"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