Pugh v. Winter

253 A.D. 295, 2 N.Y.S.2d 9, 1938 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8423
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided February 11, 1938·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The statements which appellant admits she made to respondent in open court were sufficient to warrant an adjudication that her conduct was contemptuous. However, in view of the fact that such statements were provoked by the court and that appellant offered an apology, the punishment imposed should have been limited to a censure.

It is not necessary to pass on the other questions raised.

[296] The order appealed from should be modified by granting the motion to the extent of limiting the punishment to a censure and vacating the commitment, and as so modified affirmed, without costs.

Present — Martin, P. J., O’Malley, Townley, Cohn and Callahan, JJ.

Order unanimously modified by granting the motion to the extent of limiting the punishment to a censure and vacating the commitment, and as so modified affirmed, without costs.

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

Pugh v. Winter, 253 A.D. 295, 2 N.Y.S.2d 9, 1938 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8423 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1938).

253 A.D. 295 (Pugh v. Winter) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Ungar v. Sarafite
376 U.S. 575 (Supreme Court, 1964)
Borden v. Tobias
42 Misc. 2d 1069 (New York Supreme Court, 1964)
Siegel v. Crawford
265 A.D. 877 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1942)