From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Dawn

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 24, 1992
180 A.D.2d 800 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)

Opinion

February 24, 1992

Appeal from the Family Court, Suffolk County (Snellenburg, J.).


Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and that branch of the motion which was to hold the appellant in contempt is denied in its entirety.

Because of the respondent's failure to set forth on the "face" of the contempt motion the notice and warning required by Judiciary Law § 756, the Family Court was without jurisdiction to punish the mother for contempt for her noncompliance with the visitation order (see, Murrin v. Murrin, 93 A.D.2d 858; Stevens Plumbing Supply Co. v. Bi-County Plumbing Heating Co., 94 Misc.2d 456; see generally, Bank Leumi Trust Co. v. Taylor-Cishahayo, 147 Misc.2d 685). Bracken, J.P., O'Brien, Ritter and Copertino, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Matter of Dawn

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 24, 1992
180 A.D.2d 800 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)
Case details for

Matter of Dawn

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of DAWN P. et al. JOHN P., Respondent; NANCY P., Appellant

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

Date published: Feb 24, 1992

Citations

180 A.D.2d 800 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)
580 N.Y.S.2d 436

Citing Cases

Pizzirusso v. Grossman

The plaintiff's notice of motion, however, did not warn the appellant, as required by Judiciary Law — 756,…

Ortega v. City of New York

" It is well settled that an application to punish for contempt that does not contain the warnings required…