Singer v. Groh

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Singer v. Groh

99 A.D.2d 758, 471 N.Y.S.2d 675, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17126

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

DecidedFebruary 6, 1984

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 99 A.D.2d 758 (Singer v. Groh) 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

Singer v. Groh, 99 A.D.2d 758, 471 N.Y.S.2d 675, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17126 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Groh, J.), entered May 19, 1982, which adjudged petitioner guilty of criminal contempt committed in the immediate presence of the court and imposed a fine in the amount of $250. Petition granted, determination annulled, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and fine ordered remitted. A review of the record reveals that petitioner was not afforded an opportunity “to make a statement in his defense or in extenuation of his conduct” before being summarily adjudged in contempt as is required by the rules of this court (22 NYCRR 701.2 [c]). In addition, there was no showing that petitioner acted for any reason other than to protect the record in the best interests of his client. (See Matter ofRotwein [Goodman], 291 NY 116; Matter of Marino v Burstein, 72 AD2d 814.) Mollen, P. J., Lazer, Gibbons and Bracken, 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, Queens County (Groh, J.), entered May 19, 1982, which adjudged petitioner guilty of criminal contempt committed in the immediate presence of the court and imposed a fine in the amount of $250. Petition granted, determination annulled, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and fine ordered remitted. A review of the record reveals that petitioner was not afforded an opportunity “to make a statement in his defense or in extenuation of his conduct” before being summarily adjudged in contempt as is required by the rules of this court (22 NYCRR 701.2 [c]). In addition, there was no showing that petitioner acted for any reason other than to protect the record in the best interests of his client. (See Matter ofRotwein [Goodman], 291 NY 116; Matter of Marino v Burstein, 72 AD2d 814.) Mollen, P. J., Lazer, Gibbons and Bracken, JJ. concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

99 A.D.2d 758, 471 N.Y.S.2d 675, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17126, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/singer-v-groh-nyappdiv-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack