Goldberg v. Birbrower

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Goldberg v. Birbrower

281 A.D.2d 546, 721 N.Y.S.2d 819, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2625

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

DecidedMarch 19, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 281 A.D.2d 546 (Goldberg v. Birbrower) 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

Goldberg v. Birbrower, 281 A.D.2d 546, 721 N.Y.S.2d 819, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2625 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent, dated June 15, 2000, which summarily adjudged the petitioner guilty of criminal contempt and imposed a period of incarceration of 60 days, the appeal is from a judgment of the [547]*547Supreme Court, Westchester County (Leavitt, J.), dated October 3, 2000, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the judgment is modified by deleting the provision thereof which, in effect, determined that the term of incarceration of 60 days was proper and substituting therefor a provision reducing the term of incarceration from 60 days to 30 days; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The petitioner was properly adjudged in criminal contempt, and was given an opportunity to be heard within the meaning of 22 NYCRR 701.2 (c) (cf., Matter of Spain v Braatz, 217 AD2d 661). The term of incarceration, however, was excessive to the extent indicated. Santucci, J. P., S. Miller, McGinity and Smith, JJ., concur.

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

—In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent, dated June 15, 2000, which summarily adjudged the petitioner guilty of criminal contempt and imposed a period of incarceration of 60 days, the appeal is from a judgment of the [547]*547Supreme Court, Westchester County (Leavitt, J.), dated October 3, 2000, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the judgment is modified by deleting the provision thereof which, in effect, determined that the term of incarceration of 60 days was proper and substituting therefor a provision reducing the term of incarceration from 60 days to 30 days; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The petitioner was properly adjudged in criminal contempt, and was given an opportunity to be heard within the meaning of 22 NYCRR 701.2 (c) (cf., Matter of Spain v Braatz, 217 AD2d 661). The term of incarceration, however, was excessive to the extent indicated. Santucci, J. P., S. Miller, McGinity and Smith, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

281 A.D.2d 546, 721 N.Y.S.2d 819, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2625, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/goldberg-v-birbrower-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack