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

N.Y. Judiciary Law § 755 (2026)

When punishment may be summary

✓ 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 
§ 755. When punishment may be summary. Where the offense is committed
in the immediate view and presence of the court, or of the judge or
referee, upon a trial or hearing, it may be punished summarily. For that
purpose, an order must be made by the court, judge, or referee, stating
the facts which constitute the offense and which bring the case within
the provisions of this section, and plainly and specifically prescribing
the punishment to be inflicted therefor. Such order is reviewable by a
proceeding under article seventy-eight of the civil practice law and
rules.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 23 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1986–2021 · leading case: Loeber v. Teresi, 256 A.D.2d 747 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 1998).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Loeber v. Teresi, 256 A.D.2d 747 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 1998). · cites it 2× “(See, Judiciary Law §§ 755, 774 [1].) The mandate that a contempt order be reduced to writing is an indispensable requirement (see, Judiciary Law § 755; Matter of Lynch v Derounian, 41 AD2d 740 ; Matter of Cleary, 237 App Div 519 ).”
Pronti v. Allen, 13 A.D.3d 1034 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2004). · cites it 2× “After the fourth time that petitioner asked the same question and called Tostanoski a liar for giving the same answer, with similar warnings by respondent after the first three instances, respondent informed petitioner that he was in contempt of court {see Judiciary Law § 755).…”
Julie G. v. Yu-Jen G., 81 A.D.3d 1079 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2011). “Respondent’s challenge to the summary contempt order in Saratoga County is not properly before this Court.”
People v. Tyrone Sweat, 23 N.E.3d 955 (N.Y. 2014). “For a court to summarily punish contempt, our Judiciary Law requires issuance of an order “stating the facts which constitute the offense” and “plainly and specifically prescribing the punishment to be inflicted” (Judiciary Law § 755 [emphasis added]). Notably absent from County…”
In re Hart, 849 N.E.2d 946 (N.Y. 2006). “Such order is reviewable by a proceeding under article seventy-eight of the civil practice law and rules” (Judiciary Law § 755). . In the moment, the Judge took the correct course by summoning a court officer.”
Scott v. Coleman, 20 A.D.3d 631 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2005). · cites it 2× “Supreme Court granted the relief requested because respondent failed to reduce the contempt order to writing as required by Judiciary Law § 755. Thereafter, petitioner moved pursuant to CPLR article 86 for counsel fees and other expenses.”
Kelly v. Kelly, 34 A.D.3d 809 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2006). “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.”
O'Connell v. Taddeo, 174 Misc. 2d 110 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1997). · cites it 2× “This proceeding was commenced, pursuant to Judiciary Law § 755 and CPLR 7805, for the purpose of reviewing a summary contempt order issued against the petitioner by the respondent, a Family Court Judge of the County of Monroe.”
Shockome v. Shockome, 30 A.D.3d 529 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2006). “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.”
Kunstler v. Galligan, 168 A.D.2d 146 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep't 1991). “Additionally, Judiciary Law § 755 provides that "[w]here the offense is committed in the immediate view and presence of the court * * * it may be punished summarily.”
Michael N. G. v. Elsa R., 233 A.D.2d 264 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep't 1996). “The court’s action amounted to summary punishment, which pursuant to Judiciary Law § 755, may be imposed only where the offense is committed in the presence of the court.”
Eaton v. Eaton, 46 A.D.3d 1432 (N.Y. App. Div. 4th Dep't 2007). “We note that, although the statute of limitations may have expired with respect to defendant’s right to challenge the contempt proceeding by way of a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (see Judiciary Law § 755; CPLR 217 [1]; Loeber, 256 AD2d at 748-749 ), defendant may…”
Show all 23 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.