Herbst v. Belen

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Herbst v. Belen

40 A.D.3d 1095, 834 N.Y.S.2d 877

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

DecidedMay 29, 2007

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 40 A.D.3d 1095 (Herbst v. Belen) 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

Herbst v. Belen, 40 A.D.3d 1095, 834 N.Y.S.2d 877 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

[1096]*1096Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, inter alia, to review a determination of the respondent dated January 29, 2007, which summarily adjudged the petitioner guilty of criminal contempt of court and imposed a sentence of imprisonment of 10 days.

Adjudged that the petition is denied, without costs or disbursements, and the proceeding is dismissed.

The petitioner’s insolent statements and disruptive conduct, as reflected in the record, satisfied the statutory prerequisites for the respondent’s adjudication of summary contempt (see Judiciary Law § 750 [A] [1]; 755; 22 NYCRR 701.2; Matter of Brostoff v Berkman, 79 NY2d 938, 940 [1992], cert denied 506 US 861 [1992]; Matter of Levine v Recant, 278 AD2d 124, 125 [2000]). The petitioner’s contentions regarding the appropriateness of the sentence imposed have been rendered academic. Prudenti, PJ., Fisher, Dillon and Dickerson, JJ., concur.

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

[1096]*1096Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, inter alia, to review a determination of the respondent dated January 29, 2007, which summarily adjudged the petitioner guilty of criminal contempt of court and imposed a sentence of imprisonment of 10 days.

Adjudged that the petition is denied, without costs or disbursements, and the proceeding is dismissed.

The petitioner’s insolent statements and disruptive conduct, as reflected in the record, satisfied the statutory prerequisites for the respondent’s adjudication of summary contempt (see Judiciary Law § 750 [A] [1]; 755; 22 NYCRR 701.2; Matter of Brostoff v Berkman, 79 NY2d 938, 940 [1992], cert denied 506 US 861 [1992]; Matter of Levine v Recant, 278 AD2d 124, 125 [2000]). The petitioner’s contentions regarding the appropriateness of the sentence imposed have been rendered academic. Prudenti, PJ., Fisher, Dillon and Dickerson, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

40 A.D.3d 1095, 834 N.Y.S.2d 877, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/herbst-v-belen-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack