From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Mtr. of Thomas v. Kelly

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 28, 2006
34 A.D.3d 809 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)

Opinion

No. 2005-10770.

November 28, 2006.

In related child custody proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the father appeals from an order of the Family Court, Nassau County (Eisman, J.), dated October 27, 2005, which found him guilty of criminal contempt.

Before: Florio, J.P., Adams, Krausman and Rivera, JJ., concur.


Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, without costs or disbursements.

Where, as here, the purported contempt was committed within the immediate view and presence of the court and was punished summarily ( see Judiciary Law §§ 750, 752; 22 NYCRR 701.2), review must be had under CPLR article 78 and not by way of direct appeal ( see Judiciary Law § 755; Matter of Shockome v Shockome, 30 AD3d 529; Matter of Ellman, 117 AD2d 803; People v Longo, 30 AD2d 828; People v Epps, 21 AD2d 650, cert denied 379 US 940). Moreover, because this matter involves a Family Court Judge, this Court is without original jurisdiction to entertain it as a CPLR article 78 proceeding ( see Matter of Nolan v Lungen, 61 NY2d 788; Matter of Shockome v Shockome, supra; Matter of O'Connell v Taddeo, 174 Misc 2d 110, 112; CPLR 506 [b] [1]).

Accordingly, the appeal must be dismissed.


Summaries of

Mtr. of Thomas v. Kelly

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 28, 2006
34 A.D.3d 809 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)
Case details for

Mtr. of Thomas v. Kelly

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of THOMAS J. KELLY, Appellant, v. EILEEN KELLY, Respondent

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

Date published: Nov 28, 2006

Citations

34 A.D.3d 809 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)
2006 N.Y. Slip Op. 8984
826 N.Y.S.2d 117

Citing Cases

In re Julie

Respondent's challenge to the summary contempt order in Saratoga County is not properly before this Court. No…

Ward v. Warren

This Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction to entertain this proceeding ( seeCPLR 7804[b]; 506[b];…