New York Consolidated Laws

N.Y. Judiciary Law § 751 (2026)

Punishment for criminal contempts

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NY-LEGnysenate.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
§ 751. Punishment for criminal contempts. 1. Except as provided in
subdivisions (2), (3) and (4), punishment for a contempt, specified in
section seven hundred fifty, may be by fine, not exceeding one thousand
dollars, or by imprisonment, not exceeding thirty days, in the jail of
the county where the court is sitting, or both, in the discretion of the
court. Where the punishment for contempt is based on a violation of an
order of protection issued under section 530.12 or 530.13 of the
criminal procedure law, imprisonment may be for a term not exceeding
three months. Where a person is committed to jail, for the nonpayment of
a fine, imposed under this section, he must be discharged at the
expiration of thirty days; but where he is also committed for a definite
time, the thirty days must be computed from the expiration of the
definite time.
  Such a contempt, committed in the immediate view and presence of the
court, may be punished summarily; when not so committed, the party
charged must be notified of the accusation, and have a reasonable time
to make a defense.
  2. (a) Where an employee organization, as defined in section two
hundred one of the civil service law, wilfully disobeys a lawful mandate
of a court of record, or wilfully offers resistance to such lawful
mandate, in a case involving or growing out of a strike in violation of
subdivision one of section two hundred ten of the civil service law, the
punishment for each day that such contempt persists may be by a fine
fixed in the discretion of the court. In the case of a government exempt
from certain provisions of article fourteen of the civil service law,
pursuant to section two hundred twelve of such law, the court may, as an
additional punishment for such contempt, order forfeiture of the rights
granted pursuant to the provisions of paragraph (b) of subdivision one,
and subdivision three of section two hundred eight of such law, for such
specified period of time, as the court shall determine or, in the
discretion of the court, for an indefinite period of time subject to
restoration upon application, with notice to all interested parties,
supported by proof of good faith compliance with the requirements of
subdivision one of section two hundred ten of the civil service law
since the date of such violation, such proof to include, for example,
the successful negotiation, without a violation of subdivision one of
section two hundred ten of the civil service law, of a contract covering
the employees in the unit affected by such violation; provided, however,
that where a fine imposed pursuant to this subdivision remains wholly or
partly unpaid, after the exhaustion of the cash and securities of the
employee organization, such forfeiture shall be suspended to the extent
necessary for the unpaid portion of such fine to be accumulated by the
public employer and transmitted to the court. In fixing the amount of
the fine and/or duration of the forfeiture, the court shall consider all
the facts and circumstances directly related to the contempt, including,
but not limited to: (i) the extent of the wilful defiance of or a
resistance to the court's mandate (ii) the impact of the strike on the
public health, safety, and welfare of the community and (iii) the
ability of the employee organization to pay the fine imposed; and the
court may consider (i) the refusal of the employee organization or the
appropriate public employer, as defined in section two hundred one of
the civil service law, or the representatives thereof, to submit to the
mediation and fact-finding procedures provided in section two hundred
nine of the civil service law and (ii) whether, if so alleged by the
employee organization, the appropriate public employer or its
representatives engaged in such acts of extreme provocation as to
detract from the responsibility of the employee organization for the
strike. In determining the ability of the employee organization to pay
the fine imposed, the court shall consider both the income and the
assets of such employee organization.
  (b) In the event membership dues and sums equivalent to dues are
collected by the public employer as provided respectively in paragraph
(b) of subdivision one and subdivision three of section two hundred
eight of the civil service law, the books and records of such public
employer shall be prima facie evidence of the amount so collected.
  (c) (i) An employee organization appealing an adjudication and fine
for criminal contempt imposed pursuant to subdivision two of this
section, shall not be required to pay such fine until such appeal is
finally determined.
  (ii) The court to which such an appeal is taken shall, on motion of
any party thereto, grant a preference in the hearing thereof.
  3. (a) Where a union or hospital wilfully disobeys a lawful mandate of
a court of record, or wilfully offers resistance to such lawful mandate,
in a case involving or growing out of a violation of section seven
hundred thirteen of the labor law, the punishment for each day that such
contempt persists may be by a fine fixed in the discretion of the court.
In fixing the amount of such fine, the court shall consider all the
facts and circumstances directly related to the contempt, including, but
not limited to: (i) the extent of the wilful defiance of, or resistance
to, the court's mandate (ii) the impact of the strike or lockout on the
public health, safety and welfare of the community and (iii) the ability
of the union or hospital to pay the fine imposed; and the court may
consider (i) the refusal of the union or hospital, or the
representatives thereof, to submit to or comply with, the fact-finding
and arbitration procedures provided in section seven hundred sixteen of
the labor law. In determining the ability of the union or hospital to
pay the fine imposed, the court shall consider both the income and the
assets of such union or hospital.
  (b) A union or hospital appealing an adjudication and fine for
criminal contempt imposed pursuant to this subdivision, shall not be
required to pay such fine until such appeal is finally determined. The
court to which such an appeal is taken shall, on motion of any party
thereto, grant a preference in the hearing thereof.
  (c) As used in this subdivision, "union" shall mean any labor
organization or company union as defined in section seven hundred one of
the labor law, and "hospital" shall mean any non-profit-making hospital
or residential care center as defined in that section.
  4. Where any person wilfully disobeys a lawful mandate of the supreme
court issued pursuant to subdivision twelve of section sixty-three of
the executive law, the punishment for each day that such contempt
persists may be by a fine fixed in the discretion of the court, but not
to exceed five thousand dollars per day. In fixing the amount of the
fine, the court shall consider all the facts and circumstances directly
related to the contempt, including, but not limited to: (i) the extent
of the wilful defiance of or resistance to the court's mandate, (ii) the
amount of gain obtained by the wilful disobedience of the mandate, and
(iii) the effect upon the public of the wilful disobedience.
  5. Where any member of the news media as defined in subdivision two of
section two hundred eighteen of this chapter, willfully disobeys a
lawful mandate of a court issued pursuant to such section, the
punishment for each day that such contempt persists may be by a fine
fixed in the discretion of the court, but not to exceed five thousand
dollars per day or imprisonment, not exceeding thirty days, in the jail
of the county where the court is sitting or both, in the discretion of
the court. In fixing the amount of the fine, the court shall consider
all the facts and circumstances directly related to the contempt,
including, but not limited to: (i) the extent of the willful defiance of
or resistance to the court's mandate, (ii) the amount of gain obtained
by the willful disobedience of the mandate, and (iii) the effect upon
the public and the parties to the proceeding of the willful
disobedience.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 76 cases (15 in the last 5 years), 1977–2026 · leading case: New York City Transit Auth. v. Transp. Workers Union of Am., 35 A.D.3d 73 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006).
New York City Transit Auth. v. Transp. Workers Union of Am., 35 A.D.3d 73 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006). · cites it 6× “As further discussed below, under Judiciary Law § 751 (2) (a), “extreme provocation” is a discretionary factor to be considered in the fixing of the contempt fine.”
Dep't of Env't Prot. v. Dep't of Env't Conservation, 513 N.E.2d 706 (N.Y. 1987). · cites it 2× “Consequently, it must be held in criminal contempt and the fine is fixed in the amount of $250, the maximum permitted by law (Judiciary Law § 751 [1]). This court’s power to punish for civil and criminal contempt is found respectively in Judiciary Law § 753 (A) (3) and § 750 (A)…”
Gabrelian v. Gabrelian, 108 A.D.2d 445 (N.Y. App. Div. 1985). · cites it 2× “Fines for criminal contempt, in contrast, are punitive in nature and are generally limited to a maximum of $250 (see, Judiciary Law § 751; In re Nevitt, 117 F 448).”
Clinton Corner H.D.F.C. v. Lavergne, 279 A.D.2d 339 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001). · cites it 3× “Judiciary Law § 751, which sets forth the authorized punishments for criminal contempt, is silent with regard to an award of attorneys’ fees and provides for fines not to exceed $1,000 (Judiciary Law § 751 [1]).”
Dep't of Hous. Pres. & Dev. v. Deka Realty Corp., 208 A.D.2d 37 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995). “HPD contends that, pursuant to the consent decree, a fine of $13,250 should be imposed for civil contempt which amount represents the maximum statutory fine of $250 (see, Judiciary Law § 773) multiplied by the 53 violations, and a fine of $53,000 should be imposed for criminal…”
Dep't of Hous. Pres. & Dev. v. 24 West 132 Equities, Inc., 137 Misc. 2d 459 (N.Y. App. Term. 1987). · cites it 2× “Personal delivery of process, as *462 a heightened form of notice, is of course always preferable, but due process does not require it in special proceedings such as this one so long as the party charged is notified of the accusation and is afforded a reasonable time to defend…”
O'Connell v. Taddeo, 174 Misc. 2d 110 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1997). · cites it 4× “O’Connell was found in contempt of court pursuant to Judiciary Law § 750 (A) (1), and sentenced in accordance with Judiciary Law § 751 (1), based upon his "disorderly, contemptuous, and insolent behavior * * * committed during a proceeding before this Court, in the Court’s…”
State v. Pothier, 721 P.2d 1294 (N.M. 1986). “100 (1985) 25 days, $500 New York N.YJud.Law § 751 (Consol.1983 & Cum.Supp.”
In Re Sassower, 76 B.R. 957 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1987). “The debtor had argued that he could not be convicted for criminal contempt by the New York Supreme Court pursuant to N.YJud.L. § 751 when he failed to appear before the state court referee on the ground that the referee was disqualified from adjudicating the contempt proceeding.”
Pitterson v. Watson, 299 A.D.2d 467 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002). “However, the Supreme Court improperly punished the defendant for his contempt by striking the answer and, in effect, granting the plaintiffs judgment on their complaint. While a court may properly strike a defendant’s answer for a discovery violation (see CPLR 3126), a court…”
Dep't of Hous. Pres. & Dev. v. Living Waters Realty Inc., 14 Misc. 3d 484 (N.Y. City Civ. Ct. 2006). “l0, 2005) x $10 x 79 = $147,730 $971,080 As for criminal contempt, it is ordered and adjudged that, pursuant to Judiciary Law § 751, each prior owner shall pay a fine of $1,000 to the petitioner, that Harriet Thomas shall be committed to the city or county jail for a definite…”
In re Aretakis, 57 A.D.3d 1160 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008). “Upon remittal, Judge Hummel held a hearing, found respondent in contempt of court pursuant to Judiciary Law § 750 and imposed the maximum allowable fine (see Judiciary Law § 751 [1]). By decision dated September 6, 2007, Gary L.”
N.Y. Judiciary Law § 751(1): 3 cases
Morfesis v. Dep't of Hous. Pres. & Dev., 733 F. Supp. 745 (S.D.N.Y. 1990).
People v. Trump, 2024 NY Slip Op 31548(U) (N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty. 2024).
ExcelUSMLE Review LLC v. Reddy, 2026 NY Slip Op 30776(U) (N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty. 2026).
N.Y. Judiciary Law § 751(A): 1 case
City of New York v. Big John's Roofing LLC, 2024 NY Slip Op 33456(U) (N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty. 2024).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.