Marino v. Burstein

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Marino v. Burstein

72 A.D.2d 814, 421 N.Y.S.2d 904, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14093

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

DecidedNovember 26, 1979

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 72 A.D.2d 814 (Marino v. Burstein) 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

Marino v. Burstein, 72 A.D.2d 814, 421 N.Y.S.2d 904, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14093 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated January 3, 1979, which adjudged petitioner guilty of criminal contempt committed in the immediate presence of the court and imposed a fine of $250, or, in the alternative, five days’ imprisonment. Petition granted, determination annulled, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and fine ordered remitted. There was no showing that petitioner acted for any reason other than to protect the record in the best interests of her client (see Matter of Rotwein [Goodman], 291 NY 116). Furthermore, petitioner was never afforded an opportunity "to make a statement in [her] defense or in extenuation of [her] conduct”, as is required under the rules of this court (see 22 NYCRR 701.2 [c]). Mollen, P. J., Rabin, Cohalan and Margett, 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 Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated January 3, 1979, which adjudged petitioner guilty of criminal contempt committed in the immediate presence of the court and imposed a fine of $250, or, in the alternative, five days’ imprisonment. Petition granted, determination annulled, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and fine ordered remitted. There was no showing that petitioner acted for any reason other than to protect the record in the best interests of her client (see Matter of Rotwein [Goodman], 291 NY 116). Furthermore, petitioner was never afforded an opportunity "to make a statement in [her] defense or in extenuation of [her] conduct”, as is required under the rules of this court (see 22 NYCRR 701.2 [c]). Mollen, P. J., Rabin, Cohalan and Margett, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

72 A.D.2d 814, 421 N.Y.S.2d 904, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14093, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/marino-v-burstein-nyappdiv-1979.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack