N.Y. Laws » CHAPTER Judiciary / ARTICLE Contempts
New York Consolidated Laws

N.Y. Judiciary Law § 752 (2026)

Requisites of commitment for criminal contempt; review of certain mandates

✓ text as retrieved May 2026 (this copy records no edition or section history)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NY-LEGnysenate.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar 
§ 752. Requisites of commitment for criminal contempt; review of
certain mandates. Where a person is committed for contempt, as
prescribed in section seven hundred fifty-one, the particular
circumstances of his offense must be set forth in the mandate of
commitment. Such mandate, punishing a person summarily for a contempt
committed in the immediate view and presence of the court, is reviewable
by a proceeding under article seventy-eight of the civil practice law
and rules.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 14 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1985–2022 · leading case: Gabrelian v. Gabrelian, 108 A.D.2d 445 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 1985).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Gabrelian v. Gabrelian, 108 A.D.2d 445 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 1985). “If, as I believe to be true, the power to impose sanctions for abusive practices is merely a variety of the contempt power, then the sanction power is aimed at conduct which would be punishable as contempt were it not for the limitations found in Judiciary Law article 19.”
O'Connell v. Taddeo, 174 Misc. 2d 110 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1997). · cites it 4× “Finally, the adjudication of summary contempt should be annulled and set aside because of the failure to comply with the provisions of Judiciary Law § 752. This statute requires that the mandate of commitment contain the "particular circumstances” of the offense constituting any…”
Williams v. Cornelius, 563 N.E.2d 15 (N.Y. 1990). “The prescribed article 78 challenge to review such judicial action is not rendered moot merely because the sentence has been served, as it is the only method of review (Judiciary Law § 752). Inasmuch as lasting consequences potentially flow from the adjudication, the proceeding…”
Brostoff v. Berkman, 591 N.E.2d 1175 (N.Y. 1992). “Petitioner’s arguments that his due process rights were violated and that the mandate was defective under Judiciary Law § 752 are also without merit (see, Matter of Kunstler v Galligan, 79 NY2d 775 , affg on App Div 168 AD2d 146 ).”
Pronti v. Allen, 13 A.D.3d 1034 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2004). “These steps must be reflected in the mandate of commitment, as they constitute the “particular circumstances of [the] offense” leading to the contempt finding (Judiciary Law § 752), as well as the “facts which constitute the offense and which bring the case within the…”
People v. Percer, 90 A.D.3d 789 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2011). “*790 Where, as here, the purported contempt was committed within the immediate view and presence of the court and was punished summarily, review must be had under CPLR article 78 and not by way of direct appeal (see Judiciary Law §§ 752, 755; Matter of Julie G.”
Town of Lloyd v. Moreno, 297 A.D.2d 403 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2002). ““To establish civil contempt * * * [the moving party] must prove, to a reasonable degree of certainty, that [the party charged] violated a lawful and unequivocal court order of which [it] had knowledge and, in doing so, [it] ‘defeated, impaired, impeded, or prejudiced’ [the…”
People v. Webb, 159 A.D.2d 289 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep't 1990). “In any event, the *290 appropriate method of reviewing a summary adjudication of criminal contempt where the record is inadequate to permit review is by means of a CPLR article 78 proceeding (Judiciary Law § 752; People v Epps, 21 AD2d 650 ; People v Sanders, 58 AD2d 525 ).”
New York Times Co. v. Bell, 135 A.D.2d 182 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep't 1988). “, Judiciary Law § 752.) We find this omission significant, particularly in light of the limited duration and the pilot nature of the subject legislation.”
Gouiran Holdings, Inc. v. McCormick, 163 A.D.2d 44 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep't 1990). “) Appellant correctly argues that the requirement of Judiciary Law § 752 that the court set forth the particular circumstances of his offense applies to all judicial criminal contempts whether or not committed in the court’s presence.”
People v. Diggs, 178 A.D.3d 1203 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2019). “Finally, defendant's challenge to the multiple findings of contempt purportedly committed during the sentencing proceeding within the immediate view and in the presence of County Court is reviewable by a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, not upon direct appeal ( see…”
Matter of Politi v. Camacho, 192 A.D.3d 1037 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2021). “Judiciary Law § 752). RIVERA, J.P., CONNOLLY, BRATHWAITE NELSON and CHRISTOPHER, JJ.”
Show all 14 citing cases →
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.