Majority
The summary contempt adjudication was justified by petitioner’s clear disrespect for respondent in open court and in her immediate view and presence (Judiciary Law § 750 [A] [1]; § 751 [1]; § 755; 22 NYCRR 604.2 [a] [1]; see, Matter ofBrostoff v Berkman, 79 NY2d 938 [affg 170 AD2d 364 ], cert denied 506 US 861 ; Matter of Kunstler v Galligan, 168 AJ)2d 146, affd 79 NY2d 775 ). The circumstances did not warrant that respondent refer the matter to another Judge (see, Taylor v Hayes, 418 US 488 , 501; Matter of Katz v Murtagh, 28 NY2d 234 , 239). Vacatur of the jail term was a proper exercise of discretion (cf., 22 NYCRR 604.2 [c]). Concur — Lerner, J. P., Andrias, Saxe, Buckley and Friedman, JJ.
Cases cited
- Brostoff v. Berkman 79 NY2d 938 p. 125
- Brostoff v. Berkman 506 US 861 p. 125
- Kunstler v. Galligan 79 NY2d 775 p. 125
- Taylor v. Hayes 418 US 488 at 501 p. 125
- Katz v. Murtagh 28 NY2d 234 at 239 p. 125