Freeman v. Freeman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Freeman v. Freeman

104 A.D.2d 735, 480 N.Y.S.2d 641, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 20173

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedSeptember 21, 1984

StatusPublished

This text of 104 A.D.2d 735 (Freeman v. Freeman) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Freeman v. Freeman, 104 A.D.2d 735, 480 N.Y.S.2d 641, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 20173 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

— Order unanimously reversed, without costs, and proceeding dismissed, in accordance with the following memorandum: It was improper for the court to hold defendant in criminal contempt. An application brought to punish a contempt consisting of the failure to comply with an order of support is controlled wholly by the provisions of section 245 of the Domestic Relations Law (see Wides v Wides, 96 AD2d 592). That section requires that such an application be brought pursuant to the provisions of section 756 of the Judiciary Law, which governs civil contempt. The court is without authority in a civil contempt proceeding to impose a definite sentence of imprisonment (Wides v Wides, supra). The dismissal is without prejudice to an application for commitment for civil contempt. (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Oneida County, Sullivan, J. — criminal contempt.) Present — Hancock, Jr., J. P., Callahan, Denman, Boomer and Moule, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

— Order unanimously reversed, without costs, and proceeding dismissed, in accordance with the following memorandum: It was improper for the court to hold defendant in criminal contempt. An application brought to punish a contempt consisting of the failure to comply with an order of support is controlled wholly by the provisions of section 245 of the Domestic Relations Law (see Wides v Wides, 96 AD2d 592). That section requires that such an application be brought pursuant to the provisions of section 756 of the Judiciary Law, which governs civil contempt. The court is without authority in a civil contempt proceeding to impose a definite sentence of imprisonment (Wides v Wides, supra). The dismissal is without prejudice to an application for commitment for civil contempt. (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Oneida County, Sullivan, J. — criminal contempt.) Present — Hancock, Jr., J. P., Callahan, Denman, Boomer and Moule, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

104 A.D.2d 735, 480 N.Y.S.2d 641, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 20173, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/freeman-v-freeman-nyappdiv-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack