Opinion
December 9, 1991
Adjudged that the petition is dismissed, without costs or disbursements.
It is well settled that no review may be had of 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). However, despite the failure of the respondent Judge to issue a written order, as required by statute, we have nevertheless examined the record and find no basis for the determination summarily holding the petitioner in contempt of court. The record does not show that the petitioner acted for any reason other than to protect the record in the best interests of his client (see, Matter of Rotwein, 291 N.Y. 116; Matter of Singer v Groh, 99 A.D.2d 758; Matter of Marino v Burstein, 72 A.D.2d 814). We also note that the respondent failed to afford the petitioner an opportunity "to make a statement in his defense or in extenuation of his conduct" before summarily finding him in contempt, in violation of the rules of this court (see, 22 NYCRR 701.2 [c]).
The petitioner may have the citation expunged and obtain restitution of the $250 fine paid by him by making an appropriate application in the County Court (see, Matter of Cleary, supra; Matter of Solano v Martin, 55 A.D.2d 620). Mangano, P.J., Thompson, Bracken, Kunzeman and Sullivan, JJ., concur.