New York Consolidated Laws
N.Y. Judiciary Law § 756 (2026)
Application to punish for contempt; procedure
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
NY-LEGnysenate.gov
Justiaon Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
§ 756. Application to punish for contempt; procedure. An application
to punish for a contempt punishable civilly may be commenced by notice
of motion returnable before the court or judge authorized to punish for
the offense, or by an order of such court or judge requiring the accused
to show cause before it, or him, at a time and place therein specified,
why the accused should not be punished for the alleged offense. The
application shall be noticed, heard and determined in accordance with
the procedure for a motion on notice in an action in such court,
provided, however, that, except as provided in section fifty-two hundred
fifty of the civil practice law and rules or unless otherwise ordered by
the court, the moving papers shall be served no less than ten and no
more than thirty days before the time at which the application is
noticed to be heard. The application shall contain on its face a notice
that the purpose of the hearing is to punish the accused for a contempt
of court, and that such punishment may consist of fine or imprisonment,
or both, according to law together with the following legend printed or
type written in a size equal to at least eight point bold type:
WARNING:
YOUR FAILURE TO APPEAR
IN COURT MAY RESULT IN
YOUR IMMEDIATE ARREST
AND IMPRISONMENT FOR
CONTEMPT OF COURT.Notes of Decisions
Cited in 128
cases (28 in the last 5 years), 1984–2026 · leading case: Maddaloni v. Maddaloni, 142 A.D.3d 646 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016).
Maddaloni v. Maddaloni, 142 A.D.3d 646 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016). “The Contempt Finding In matrimonial actions, Domestic Relations Law § 245 grants the court authority to punish a party for civil contempt pursuant to Judiciary Law § 756 where the party defaults “in paying any sum of money” required by a judgment or order, “and it appears…”
Matter of Werner v. Kenney, 2026 NY Slip Op 02754 (N.Y. App. Div. 2026). “"It is well settled that the failure to include the notice or the warning language of Judiciary Law § 756 constitutes a jurisdictional defect" ( Rennert , 192 AD3d at 1515; see Barreca , 77 AD2d at 793).”
In re Michael D., 30 Misc. 3d 502 (N.Y. Fam. Ct. 2010). “ACS asserted first that the Attorney for the Child failed to adhere to the notice time frames set forth in Judiciary Law § 756. In the instant case, the Attorney for the Child served the order to show cause on August 11, 2010, with a return date of August 19, 2010.”
State Farm Fire & Cas. v. Parking Sys. Valet Serv., 85 A.D.3d 761 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011). “leting the provision thereof, upon reargument, adhering to the determination in the *762 order entered June 23, 2009, denying that branch of the plaintiffs postjudgment motion which was to impose a sanction upon nonparty Mark Baron, and substituting therefor a provision denying…”
El-Dehdan v. El-Dehdan, 114 A.D.3d 4 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013). “In an action for a divorce, Domestic Relations Law § 245 grants the court authority to punish a party for civil contempt pursuant to Judiciary Law § 756 where the party defaults “in paying any sum of money” required by a judgment or order, *23 “and it appears presumptively, to…”
Matter of Michael R. v. Aliesha H., 2017 NY Slip Op 8377 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017). “The father appeals from the three orders dated January 11, 2017. Contrary to the Family Court’s determination, the father’s order to show cause on his motion to hold the mother in contempt contained the required notice and warning language set forth in Judiciary Law § 756, and…”
Lipstick, Ltd. v. Grupo Tribasa, 304 A.D.2d 482 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003). “Although the motion court’s denial of plaintiffs’ cross motion for Sandoval’s arrest moots defendants’ argument that the *483 cross motion should have been denied because it was not served in accordance with Judiciary Law § 756, we note that the cross motion was made pursuant to…”
Penavic v. Penavic, 109 A.D.3d 648 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013). “), dated March 15, 2012, as denied, without a hearing, that branch of her motion which was pursuant to Judiciary Law § 756 to hold the defendant in civil contempt of the judgment of divorce and the parties’ stipulation of settlement dated June 22, 2009, and denied, with leave to…”
Cutroneo v. Cutroneo, 140 A.D.3d 1006 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016). “*1008 In matrimonial actions, Domestic Relations Law § 245 grants the court authority to punish a party for civil contempt pursuant to Judiciary Law § 756 where the party defaults “in paying any sum of money” required by a judgment or order, “and it appears presumptively, to the…”
41-47 Nick LLC v. Odumosu, 2024 NY Slip Op 24167 (Civ. Ct. NYC, NY Cty. 2024). “) Moreover, as petitioner points out, respondent's motion does not contain on its face the "warning" required by Judiciary Law § 756. Specifically, respondent's motion did not inform petitioner as follows: "YOUR FAILURE TO APPEAR IN COURT MAY RESULT IN YOUR IMMEDIATE ARREST AND…”
Body Glove IP Holdings LP v. On Five Corp., 2023 NY Slip Op 03400 (N.Y. App. Div. 2023). “It is undisputed that the amended notice of motion did not comport with the requirements of Judiciary Law § 756 because it did not state on its face that the punishment for contempt may consist of a fine or imprisonment, or both, and omitted a word from the legend ( see Matter…”
Penavic v. Penavic, 88 A.D.3d 671 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011). “When the defendant refused to do so, the plaintiff moved, inter alia, pursuant to Judiciary Law § 756 to hold the defendant in civil contempt.”
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.