Opinion
2020–07687
03-24-2021
In the Matter of Steven M. POLITI, etc., petitioner, v. Fernando CAMACHO, etc., respondent.
John N. Russo, Central Islip, NY, for petitioner. Letitia James, Attorney General, New York, N.Y. (Melissa Ysaguirre of counsel), for respondent.
John N. Russo, Central Islip, NY, for petitioner.
Letitia James, Attorney General, New York, N.Y. (Melissa Ysaguirre of counsel), for respondent.
REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P., FRANCESCA E. CONNOLLY, VALERIE BRATHWAITE NELSON, LINDA CHRISTOPHER, JJ.
DECISION & JUDGMENT
Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent, Fernando Camacho, an Acting Justice of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, dated September 16, 2020, which summarily adjudged the petitioner guilty of criminal contempt of court and imposed a fine in the sum of $1,000.
ADJUDGED that the petition is denied and the proceeding is dismissed, without costs or disbursements.
Judiciary Law § 750(a)(1) provides that a court of record has the power to punish a person for criminal contempt if that person is guilty of "[d]isorderly, contemptuous, or insolent behavior, committed during its sitting, in its immediate view and presence, and directly tending to interrupt its proceedings, or to impair the respect due to its authority." Furthermore, when such conduct is committed in the immediate view and presence of the court, it may be punished summarily (see Judiciary Law § 755 ). Since the court's summary contempt power constitutes such a drastic departure from ordinary due process, its use is justified only by the court's need for the preservation of order in the courtroom so that the court's business may continue (see 22 NYCRR 700.2 ; Cooke v. United States, 267 U.S. 517, 534–535, 45 S.Ct. 390, 69 L.Ed. 767 ; Matter of Katz v. Murtagh, 28 N.Y.2d 234, 238, 321 N.Y.S.2d 104, 269 N.E.2d 816 ).
Here, the petitioner's conduct, as reflected in the record, satisfied the statutory prerequisites for the adjudication of summary contempt by the respondent, the Honorable Justice Fernando Camacho, Acting Justice of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (see Judiciary Law §§ 750[a][1] ; 755; 22 NYCRR 701.2 ; Matter of Balter v. Regan, 63 N.Y.2d 630, 479 N.Y.S.2d 506, 468 N.E.2d 688 ; Matter of Herbst v. Belen, 40 A.D.3d 1095, 834 N.Y.S.2d 877 ; Matter of Werlin v. Goldberg, 129 A.D.2d 334, 517 N.Y.S.2d 745 ; Matter of Mangiatordi v. Hyman, 106 A.D.2d 576, 483 N.Y.S.2d 82 ; cf. Matter of Rotwein [Goodman], 291 N.Y. 116, 51 N.E.2d 669 ).
The petitioner's remaining contention is without merit (see Judiciary Law §§ 750, 751 ; cf. Judiciary Law § 752 ).
RIVERA, J.P., CONNOLLY, BRATHWAITE NELSON and CHRISTOPHER, JJ., concur.