From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Gold v. Valentine

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 7, 1970
35 A.D.2d 958 (N.Y. App. Div. 1970)

Opinion

December 7, 1970


Appeal from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated January 6, 1970, which adjudged appellant to be in contempt of court. Order and judgment reversed, on the law, and proceeding remitted to the Criminal Term for further proceedings not inconsistent herewith, without costs. On this motion to punish appellant for criminal contempt for failure to produce certain books and records of four named corporations, the People were required to prove appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt ( People v. Shapolsky, 8 A.D.2d 122, 125; People ex rel. Valenti v. McCloskey, 8 A.D.2d 74, 83; Matter of Wegman's Sons, 40 App. Div. 632, 633). The Criminal Term's finding that the People proved "by a preponderance of the evidence" that appellant had the books and should produce them is insufficient to sustain the judgment. Moreover, we think the People's evidence was insufficient to show the existence of virtually all the books and records subpoenaed or appellant's ability to produce them, excepting only canceled checks, bank statements and checkbook stubs ( People v. Shapolsky, supra, p. 127). Christ, P.J., Munder, Latham, Kleinfeld and Brennan, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Matter of Gold v. Valentine

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 7, 1970
35 A.D.2d 958 (N.Y. App. Div. 1970)
Case details for

Matter of Gold v. Valentine

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of EUGENE GOLD, District Attorney of Kings County…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Dec 7, 1970

Citations

35 A.D.2d 958 (N.Y. App. Div. 1970)

Citing Cases

Rubackin v. Rubackin

not specifically refer to the contempt under Family Court Act § 846-a as "criminal," its description of the…

Matter of Vacco v. Consalvo

In this context, "willfulness" means no more than knowing and intentional ( see, e.g., Goldfine v United…