Marino v. Meyers

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Marino v. Meyers

61 A.D.2d 938, 403 N.Y.S.2d 29, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10531

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

DecidedMarch 21, 1978

StatusPublished

This text of 61 A.D.2d 938 (Marino v. Meyers) 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. Meyers, 61 A.D.2d 938, 403 N.Y.S.2d 29, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10531 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

Application in this article 78 proceeding unanimously denied and petition dismissed, without costs or disbursements. Petitioners’ refusal to testify, as directed, was contumacious. The court’s inquiries were basically relevant to a determination of the issue whether petitioners’ client was entitled to a transcript of the proceedings, free of charge. If petitioners felt that some of the court’s proposed questions were beyond the scope of such inquiry or were otherwise objectionable, they could have objected, as they saw fit, to the impropriety thereof, as each question was put. But they could not, in the first instance, refuse to testify. Even though the original issue of petitioners’ client’s eligibility for a free transcript is now academic, petitioners still have the opportunity of purging themselves of their contempt. Concur—Lupiano, J. P., Fein, Lane, Markewich and Sullivan, JJ.

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

Application in this article 78 proceeding unanimously denied and petition dismissed, without costs or disbursements. Petitioners’ refusal to testify, as directed, was contumacious. The court’s inquiries were basically relevant to a determination of the issue whether petitioners’ client was entitled to a transcript of the proceedings, free of charge. If petitioners felt that some of the court’s proposed questions were beyond the scope of such inquiry or were otherwise objectionable, they could have objected, as they saw fit, to the impropriety thereof, as each question was put. But they could not, in the first instance, refuse to testify. Even though the original issue of petitioners’ client’s eligibility for a free transcript is now academic, petitioners still have the opportunity of purging themselves of their contempt. Concur—Lupiano, J. P., Fein, Lane, Markewich and Sullivan, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

61 A.D.2d 938, 403 N.Y.S.2d 29, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10531, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/marino-v-meyers-nyappdiv-1978.