Civil Contempt For Spouse Who Failed To Comply With Post-Judgment Subpoena

Posted: July 3, 2026 / Written by: Jeffrey M. Eilender, Thomas A. Kissane, Samuel L. Butt, Joshua Wurtzel, Channing J. Turner / Categories Contempt, Judgment and Collection

Civil Contempt For Spouse Who Failed To Comply With Post-Judgment Subpoena

On May 11, 2026, Justice Andrew Borrok of the New York County Commercial Division granted a motion to hold the wife of a judgment debtor in contempt. The case is Hamway v. Sutton, Index No. 164541/2025.

The motion was brought by parties holding a judgment in the principal amount of $4,902,825.55 against Isaac Sutton since May 2018. In 2025, they commenced the action at bar against Alisa Sutton, Isaac’s wife, seeking to compel her compliance with a post-judgment subpoena duces tecum and ad testificandum dated January 9, 2024 (“the Alisa Subpoena”). By order dated September 15, 2025, the Court ordered Ms. Sutton to respond in full to the Alisa Subpoena on pain of contempt.

As Justice Borrok observed, when Ms. Sutton provided a written response on December 13, 2025 – nearly two years after the Alisa Subpoena had been served – it was “woefully inadequate”. Slip op., p. 2. For example:

As to Requests 1 and 2 [which sought all information concerning two non-parties from whom she had received “substantial infusions of cash”, id.], Ms. Sutton agreed only to produce consulting agreements and asserted that no bank accounts exist beyond those produced by her husband (id. at 3). As to Request 3 [which sought all documents concerning household expenses], Ms. Sutton produced only certain credit-card and Venmo statements and did not produce any documents reflecting utility bills, mortgage payments, rent payments, property tax records, property maintenance, household insurance or the other information requested (id. at 3-4). Ms. Sutton’s responses to Requests 4 through 18 are similarly unresponsive and inadequate. Notably, even as to the limited portions of the Alisa Subpoena to which she purported to respond, she states that she “will” produce documents rather than that she produced them, despite the passage of nearly two years. According to the Plaintiff (tr. 5.11.26), some of them are still missing. Additionally, Ms. Sutton has still refused to appear for a deposition.

Id., p. 4.

After finding her in civil contempt, Justice Borrok offered a final chance to cure:

Ms. Sutton may purge her contempt by supplementing her subpoena response and scheduling a deposition no later than May 21, 2026. The deposition must occur no later than June 22, 2026. If she does not, the Court shall issue a supplemental order ordering her coercive confinement.

Id., pp. 5-6.

Contact the Commercial Division Blog Committee at commercialdivisionblog@schlamstone.com if you or a client have questions concerning judgment collection or contempt applications.