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

N.Y. Judiciary Law § 757 (2026)

Application to punish for contempt committed before referee

✓ 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 
§ 757. Application to punish for contempt committed before referee.
Where the offense is committed upon the trial of an issue referred to a
referee appointed by the court, or consists of a witness's
non-attendance, or refusal to be sworn or testify, before him, the
application prescribed in this section may be made returnable before him
or before the court. 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.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases, 1976–1989 · leading case: Vail v. Quinlan, 406 F. Supp. 951 (S.D.N.Y. 1976).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Vail v. Quinlan, 406 F. Supp. 951 (S.D.N.Y. 1976). “A section providing that, upon arrest for failure to respond to an order to show cause, the sheriff must bring the debtor directly before the court, might pass constitutional muster if the show cause order clearly advises the debt- or that failure to respond might result in the…”
Dep't of Hous. Pres. & Dev. v. 24 West 132 Equities, Inc., 137 Misc. 2d 459 (N.Y. App. Term. 1987). “The designated Housing Judges who preside in the Housing Part of Civil Court are officers of that court and are expressly authorized by statute to punish for contempts in the same manner as Civil Court Judges (CCA 110 [e]; see also, Judiciary Law § 757). In light of the Housing…”
Hernandez v. Hernandez, 148 A.D.2d 1011 (N.Y. App. Div. 4th Dep't 1989). “The order to show cause served upon the Department failed to give it notice that the purpose of the proceeding was to determine whether the Department should be punished for contempt (see, Judiciary Law § 757; Family Ct Act § 846; Matter of Stagnar v Stagnar, 98 AD2d 983, 984 ).”
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.