Mangiatordi v. Hyman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Mangiatordi v. Hyman

106 A.D.2d 576, 483 N.Y.S.2d 82, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 21918

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

DecidedDecember 24, 1984

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 106 A.D.2d 576 (Mangiatordi v. Hyman) 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

Mangiatordi v. Hyman, 106 A.D.2d 576, 483 N.Y.S.2d 82, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 21918 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent dated March 2, 1984, which adjudged petitioner guilty of criminal contempt and imposed a fine of $50.

Determination confirmed and proceeding dismissed on the merits, with costs.

A review of the record reveals that the respondent Trial Judge acted properly in summarily adjudicating petitioner to be in contempt based upon his having continuously disregarded the court’s rulings, and his intemperate and abusive conduct directed toward both the court and opposing counsel after having been repeatedly warned and admonished to desist. Petitioner’s conduct and his numerous statements intimating that the court was acting in a biased manner tended both to disrupt the proceedings while they were actually in progress and to seriously destroy or undermine the dignity and authority of the court in a manner and to an extent that it appeared unlikely that the court would be able to conduct its normal business in an appropriate way. Therefore, the respondent was justified in [577]*577concluding that a prompt summary adjudication was necessary (22 NYCRR 701.2 [a] [1], [2]). Since the court made its adjudication during the course of the trial rather than at its conclusion, no hearing was required (22 NYCRR 701.2, 701.3; cf. Matter of Zols v Lakritz, 74 Misc 2d 322). Finally, the record reveals that petitioner was afforded a reasonable opportunity to make a statement in his defense or in extenuation of his conduct (22 NYCRR 701.2 [c]; cf. Matter of Singer v Groh, 99 AD2d 758). Brown, J. P., Niehoff, Rubin and Fiber, JJ., concur.

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

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent dated March 2, 1984, which adjudged petitioner guilty of criminal contempt and imposed a fine of $50.

Determination confirmed and proceeding dismissed on the merits, with costs.

A review of the record reveals that the respondent Trial Judge acted properly in summarily adjudicating petitioner to be in contempt based upon his having continuously disregarded the court’s rulings, and his intemperate and abusive conduct directed toward both the court and opposing counsel after having been repeatedly warned and admonished to desist. Petitioner’s conduct and his numerous statements intimating that the court was acting in a biased manner tended both to disrupt the proceedings while they were actually in progress and to seriously destroy or undermine the dignity and authority of the court in a manner and to an extent that it appeared unlikely that the court would be able to conduct its normal business in an appropriate way. Therefore, the respondent was justified in [577]*577concluding that a prompt summary adjudication was necessary (22 NYCRR 701.2 [a] [1], [2]). Since the court made its adjudication during the course of the trial rather than at its conclusion, no hearing was required (22 NYCRR 701.2, 701.3; cf. Matter of Zols v Lakritz, 74 Misc 2d 322). Finally, the record reveals that petitioner was afforded a reasonable opportunity to make a statement in his defense or in extenuation of his conduct (22 NYCRR 701.2 [c]; cf. Matter of Singer v Groh, 99 AD2d 758). Brown, J. P., Niehoff, Rubin and Fiber, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

106 A.D.2d 576, 483 N.Y.S.2d 82, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 21918, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mangiatordi-v-hyman-nyappdiv-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack