Karp v. Karp

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Karp v. Karp

257 A.D. 966, 12 N.Y.S.2d 903, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8723

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

DecidedJune 5, 1939

StatusPublished

This text of 257 A.D. 966 (Karp v. Karp) 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

Karp v. Karp, 257 A.D. 966, 12 N.Y.S.2d 903, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8723 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1939).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action for divorce, defendant appeals from an order adjudging him to be in contempt of court and imposing a fine therefor. Order reversed on the law, without costs, and matter remitted to Special Term for further proceedings in accordance with the rule stated in Aron v. Aron (280 N. Y. 328). Where, as here, confirmation is opposed, of the report of a referee in a proceeding to punish for contempt, the court is not justified in confirming the report and making an order to punish for contempt without consideration of the testimony in some form or agreement by the parties as to its substance sufficient to permit the court to pass upon a challenge made to the sufficiency of the evidence. (Ibid.; and see Rules Civ. Prae. rule 170.) Neither of these alternative essentials was incident to the proceedings of the court below and remission is, therefore, proper. If this court were not lacking in power so to do, it would modify the order appealed from to the extent of striking out the finding of contempt and punishment adjudged therefor, and as thus modified, would affirm it. Lazansky, P. J., Johnston, Adel, Taylor and Close, JJ., concur. [See post, p. 968.]

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

In an action for divorce, defendant appeals from an order adjudging him to be in contempt of court and imposing a fine therefor. Order reversed on the law, without costs, and matter remitted to Special Term for further proceedings in accordance with the rule stated in Aron v. Aron (280 N. Y. 328). Where, as here, confirmation is opposed, of the report of a referee in a proceeding to punish for contempt, the court is not justified in confirming the report and making an order to punish for contempt without consideration of the testimony in some form or agreement by the parties as to its substance sufficient to permit the court to pass upon a challenge made to the sufficiency of the evidence. (Ibid.; and see Rules Civ. Prae. rule 170.) Neither of these alternative essentials was incident to the proceedings of the court below and remission is, therefore, proper. If this court were not lacking in power so to do, it would modify the order appealed from to the extent of striking out the finding of contempt and punishment adjudged therefor, and as thus modified, would affirm it. Lazansky, P. J., Johnston, Adel, Taylor and Close, JJ., concur. [See post, p. 968.]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

257 A.D. 966, 12 N.Y.S.2d 903, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8723, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/karp-v-karp-nyappdiv-1939.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack