Pawolowski v. . City of Schenectady

New York Court of Appeals

Pawolowski v. . City of Schenectady

111 N.E. 478, 217 N.Y. 117, 1916 N.Y. LEXIS 1293

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedJanuary 25, 1916

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 111 N.E. 478 (Pawolowski v. . City of Schenectady) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Pawolowski v. . City of Schenectady, 111 N.E. 478, 217 N.Y. 117, 1916 N.Y. LEXIS 1293 (N.Y. 1916).

Pincite

Opinion

Cuddeback, J.

This is an appeal from a final order which adjudged the appellant, George B. Lunn, guilty of criminal contempt of court, and fined him $100 for violating the terms of an injunction order.

Section 750 of the Judiciary Law (Cons. Laws, ch. 30) enumerates and defines the acts which constitute a criminal contempt for which the court has power to punish, and declares that there are no others. One of the acts so enumerated and defined as a criminal contempt of court is: “ Willful disobedience to its lawful mandate.” The appellant in this case cannot be punished unless his act was a “ willful disobedience ” of the injunction order. *119 Section 752 provides that where a person is committed for a criminal contempt of court, the particular circumstances of his offense must be set forth in the mandate of commitment.

The order in this case does not set forth that the appellant was guilty of a willful disobedience of the court’s lawful mandate. The order shows that Lunn disobeyed the injunction but fails to show that his disobedience was willful, which was an essential circumstance of his offense to render him subject to punishment.

For that reason the order appealed from is defective and must be reversed and proceeding dismissed. (People ex rel. Barnes v. Court of Sessions, Albany Co., 147 N. Y. 290.) But under the circumstances the reversal should be without costs to either party.

, Willard Bartlett, Oh. J., Chase, Collin, Oardozo, Seabury and Pound, JJ., concur.

Order reversed, etc.

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

Cuddeback, J.

This is an appeal from a final order which adjudged the appellant, George B. Lunn, guilty of criminal contempt of court, and fined him $100 for violating the terms of an injunction order.

Section 750 of the Judiciary Law (Cons. Laws, ch. 30) enumerates and defines the acts which constitute a criminal contempt for which the court has power to punish, and declares that there are no others. One of the acts so enumerated and defined as a criminal contempt of court is: “ Willful disobedience to its lawful mandate.” The appellant in this case cannot be punished unless his act was a “ willful disobedience ” of the injunction order. *119 Section 752 provides that where a person is committed for a criminal contempt of court, the particular circumstances of his offense must be set forth in the mandate of commitment.

The order in this case does not set forth that the appellant was guilty of a willful disobedience of the court’s lawful mandate. The order shows that Lunn disobeyed the injunction but fails to show that his disobedience was willful, which was an essential circumstance of his offense to render him subject to punishment.

For that reason the order appealed from is defective and must be reversed and proceeding dismissed. (People ex rel. Barnes v. Court of Sessions, Albany Co., 147 N. Y. 290.) But under the circumstances the reversal should be without costs to either party.

, Willard Bartlett, Oh. J., Chase, Collin, Oardozo, Seabury and Pound, JJ., concur.

Order reversed, etc.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

111 N.E. 478, 217 N.Y. 117, 1916 N.Y. LEXIS 1293, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pawolowski-v-city-of-schenectady-ny-1916.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack