Matter of Pugh v. Winter

Full title: In the Matter of the Application of LUCILE PUGH, Petitioner, Appellant…

Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Feb 11, 1938

253 App. Div. 295 (N.Y. App. Div. 1938)

2 N.Y.S.2d 9

Opinion

February 11, 1938.

Appeal from Supreme Court of New York County.

Harris Jay Griston of counsel [ Chauncey E. Treadwell with him on the brief; Enos S. Booth, attorney], for the appellant.

Robert P. Beyer, Assistant Attorney-General, of counsel [ John J. Bennett, Jr., Attorney-General, attorney], for the respondent.

Present — MARTIN, P.J., O'MALLEY, TOWNLEY, COHN and CALLAHAN, JJ.

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.

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.

PER CURIAM.

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.