From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Rodriguez v. Feinberg

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Dec 16, 1976
40 N.Y.2d 994 (N.Y. 1976)

Opinion

Argued November 18, 1976

Decided December 16, 1976

Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Third Judicial Department.

Elizabeth M. Fink and Thomas J. Burke for appellants. Louis J. Lefkowitz, Attorney-General (Lawrence L. Doolittle and Ruth Kessler Toch of counsel), for respondent.


MEMORANDUM. The judgment of the Appellate Division should be reversed and the orders of respondent adjudging each of the petitioners in criminal contempt vacated.

In the circumstances disclosed in this record none of the petitioners was accorded an opportunity to make any statement on his own behalf or otherwise to be heard. That each was afforded an opportunity to leave the courtroom before being held summarily in contempt did not serve this purpose. In short, none of the petitioners received the minimum procedural rights to which he was entitled under our holding in Matter of Katz v Murtagh ( 28 N.Y.2d 234, esp 238).

Chief Judge BREITEL and Judges JASEN, GABRIELLI, JONES, WACHTLER, FUCHSBERG and COOKE concur.

Judgment reversed, without costs, and the orders of respondent vacated in a memorandum.


Summaries of

Matter of Rodriguez v. Feinberg

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Dec 16, 1976
40 N.Y.2d 994 (N.Y. 1976)
Case details for

Matter of Rodriguez v. Feinberg

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of ANTONIO RODRIGUEZ et al., Appellants, v. ROBERT J…

Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York

Date published: Dec 16, 1976

Citations

40 N.Y.2d 994 (N.Y. 1976)
391 N.Y.S.2d 69
359 N.E.2d 665

Citing Cases

S.P. v. M.P.

.D.2d 525, 525, 395 N.Y.S.2d 190 [1st Dept. 1977] ; People v. Clinton , 42 A.D.2d 815, 815, 346 N.Y.S.2d 345…

S.P. v. M.P.

With respect to the merits, "[b]ecause contempt is a drastic remedy,... strict adherence to procedural…