123In order to make a finding of civil contempt, petitioner must establish, by clear and convincing evidence, that respondent knowingly violated a lawful court order with an unequivocal mandate and that respondent's actions “defeated, impaired, impeded or prejudiced a right of the moving party” (Matter of Aurelia v. Aurelia, 56 A.D.3d 963, 964, 869 N.Y.S.2d 227 ; see
Judiciary Law § 753[A]; Beneke v. Town of Santa Clara, 61 A.D.3d 1079, 1080–1081, 876 N.Y.S.2d 229 ; Aison v. Hudson Riv. Black Riv. Regulating Dist., 54 A.D.3d 457, 458, 862 N.Y.S.2d 642  ). Not every violation of a discovery order constitutes contempt of court. Here, respondent initially preserved the material sought by petitioner but ultimately violated Supreme Court's order by failing to maintain control of it. Petitioner's failure to establish prejudice as a result of respondent's failure to preserve the video recordings warrants the denial of his application for civil contempt (see
Augat v. Hart, 244 A.D.2d 800, 802, 665 N.Y.S.2d 970  ). Indeed, petitioner argued that the extent of the usefulness of the recordings “will never be fully known.” Notably, petitioner does not claim that the video recordings depict the assault causing his injuries, but that the recordings simply show petitioner being taken away from the front of respondent's restaurant by a police officer, “and it was at the location **394 where he was taken that [petitioner] was injured.” According the court the deference to which it is entitled, we cannot say that it abused its discretion in denying petitioner's motion (see
Beneke v. Town of Santa Clara, 61 A.D.3d at 1081, 876 N.Y.S.2d 229; Matter of Aurelia v. Aurelia, 56 A.D.3d at 966, 869 N.Y.S.2d 227).