From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Solano v. Martin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 13, 1976
55 A.D.2d 620 (N.Y. App. Div. 1976)

Opinion

December 13, 1976


Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 and section 755 Jud. of the Judiciary Law to review a decision of the County Court, Westchester County, made March 19, 1976, by the respondent Judge of said court, which (1) summarily adjudged petitioner, an attorney, guilty of contempt of court committed in the immediate view and presence of the court and (2) fined him $50 in lieu of one day's imprisonment at the Westchester County Penitentiary. Petitioner has also filed a notice of appeal from the aforesaid decision. Appeal dismissed, without costs or disbursements (see Judiciary Law, § 755). Petition dismissed, on the law, without costs or disbursements. No review lies from a contempt citation which has not been reduced to writing (see Judiciary Law, § 755; Matter of Lynch v Derounian, 41 A.D.2d 740; Matter of Cleary, 237 App. Div. 519; Matter of Borden v Tobias, 42 Misc.2d 1069). The failure of the court to reduce its finding to writing vitiates the contempt citation. Respondent concedes that, on appropriate application, the citation should be expunged and the fine remitted. Margett, Acting P.J., Rabin, Hawkins and Mollen, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Matter of Solano v. Martin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 13, 1976
55 A.D.2d 620 (N.Y. App. Div. 1976)
Case details for

Matter of Solano v. Martin

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of MATTHEW A. SOLANO, Appellant, v. LAWRENCE N. MARTIN, as…

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

Date published: Dec 13, 1976

Citations

55 A.D.2d 620 (N.Y. App. Div. 1976)

Citing Cases

Matter of Traynor v. Lange

We also note that the respondent failed to afford the petitioner an opportunity "to make a statement in his…

Eaton v. Eaton

Memorandum: Supreme Court sua sponte made a summary finding that defendant was in civil contempt of its order…