Fuhrer v. Hynes

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Fuhrer v. Hynes

72 A.D.2d 813, 421 N.Y.S.2d 906, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14090

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

DecidedNovember 26, 1979

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 72 A.D.2d 813 (Fuhrer v. Hynes) 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

Fuhrer v. Hynes, 72 A.D.2d 813, 421 N.Y.S.2d 906, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14090 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County, entered October 18, 1979, which adjudged appellant to be in criminal contempt based upon his refusal to answer questions before the Grand Jury and imposed sentence. Order affirmed, without costs or disbursements, on the opinion of Mr. Justice Barlow at Criminal Term. We further note that for the defense of justification to apply, the impending injury (here the alleged loss of appellant’s ministry) must clearly outweigh the injury sought to be prevented by statute (here the loss of Grand Jury testimony) (see Penal Law, § 35.05). The balance between similar First Amendment claims and the compelling State interest in criminal investigation has been resolved in favor of the latter (Matter of Keenan v Gigante, 47 NY2d 160; Smilow v United States, 465 F2d 802, vacated on other grounds 409 US 944). This provides further reason to reject the defense of justification. Damiani, J. P., Gulotta, Margett and Gibbons, JJ., concur. [100 Misc 2d 315.]

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

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County, entered October 18, 1979, which adjudged appellant to be in criminal contempt based upon his refusal to answer questions before the Grand Jury and imposed sentence. Order affirmed, without costs or disbursements, on the opinion of Mr. Justice Barlow at Criminal Term. We further note that for the defense of justification to apply, the impending injury (here the alleged loss of appellant’s ministry) must clearly outweigh the injury sought to be prevented by statute (here the loss of Grand Jury testimony) (see Penal Law, § 35.05). The balance between similar First Amendment claims and the compelling State interest in criminal investigation has been resolved in favor of the latter (Matter of Keenan v Gigante, 47 NY2d 160; Smilow v United States, 465 F2d 802, vacated on other grounds 409 US 944). This provides further reason to reject the defense of justification. Damiani, J. P., Gulotta, Margett and Gibbons, JJ., concur. [100 Misc 2d 315.]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

72 A.D.2d 813, 421 N.Y.S.2d 906, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14090, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fuhrer-v-hynes-nyappdiv-1979.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack