Sickmen v. Goldstein

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sickmen v. Goldstein

59 A.D.2d 731, 398 N.Y.S.2d 583, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13722

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

DecidedOctober 17, 1977

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 59 A.D.2d 731 (Sickmen v. Goldstein) 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

Sickmen v. Goldstein, 59 A.D.2d 731, 398 N.Y.S.2d 583, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13722 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (see Judiciary Law, § 752; CPLR 7801, subd 2) to review an order and mandate (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Queens County, entered May 2, 1977, which adjudged the petitioner guilty of criminal contempt committed in the immediate presence of the court and fined him $250. Petition granted; order and mandate annulled, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and fine ordered remitted. The mandate of commitment merely states that the petitioner, an attorney, during the course of a trial, "did continually interrupt, criticize and make statements to the Presiding Justice despite repeated orders and warnings to desist from doing so”. This statement was not sufficient to satisfy the statutory requirements (see Judiciary Law, § 752; Matter of Waldman v Churchill, 262 NY 247). Furthermore, the trial transcript indicates that the statements of petitioner, for which the court found him to be in contempt, were misunderstood by the court and there was no showing that they were made for any reason other than to protect the record in the best interests of his client (see Matter of Rotwein [Goodman], 291 NY 116). Hopkins, J. P., Latham, Cohalan, Damiani and Hawkins, JJ., concur.

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

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (see Judiciary Law, § 752; CPLR 7801, subd 2) to review an order and mandate (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Queens County, entered May 2, 1977, which adjudged the petitioner guilty of criminal contempt committed in the immediate presence of the court and fined him $250. Petition granted; order and mandate annulled, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and fine ordered remitted. The mandate of commitment merely states that the petitioner, an attorney, during the course of a trial, "did continually interrupt, criticize and make statements to the Presiding Justice despite repeated orders and warnings to desist from doing so”. This statement was not sufficient to satisfy the statutory requirements (see Judiciary Law, § 752; Matter of Waldman v Churchill, 262 NY 247). Furthermore, the trial transcript indicates that the statements of petitioner, for which the court found him to be in contempt, were misunderstood by the court and there was no showing that they were made for any reason other than to protect the record in the best interests of his client (see Matter of Rotwein [Goodman], 291 NY 116). Hopkins, J. P., Latham, Cohalan, Damiani and Hawkins, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

59 A.D.2d 731, 398 N.Y.S.2d 583, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13722, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sickmen-v-goldstein-nyappdiv-1977.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack