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

N.Y. Judiciary Law § 770 (2026)

Final order directing punishment; exception

✓ 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 
§ 770. Final order directing punishment; exception. Upon the return of
an application to punish for contempt, or upon a hearing held upon a
warrant of commitment issued pursuant to section seven hundred
seventy-two or seven hundred seventy-three of this article, the court
shall inform the offender that he or she has the right to the assistance
of counsel, and when it appears that the offender is financially unable
to obtain counsel, the court may in its discretion assign counsel to
represent him or her. If it is determined that the accused has committed
the offense charged; and that it was calculated to, or actually did,
defeat, impair, impede, or prejudice the rights or remedies of a party
to an action or special proceeding, brought in the court, or before the
judge or referee; the court, judge, or referee must make a final order
directing that he or she be punished by fine or imprisonment, or both,
as the nature of the case requires. A warrant of commitment must issue
accordingly, except as hereinafter provided. Where an application is
made under this article and in pursuance of section two hundred
forty-five of the domestic relations law or any other section of law for
a final order directing punishment for failure to pay alimony,
maintenance or counsel fees pursuant to an order of the court or judge
in an action for divorce or separation and the defaulting spouse appears
and satisfies the court or a judge before whom the application may be
pending that he or she has no means or property or income to comply with
the terms of the order at the time, the court or judge may in its or his
discretion deny the application to punish the defaulting spouse, without
prejudice to the applicant's rights and without prejudice to a renewal
of the application upon notice and after proof that the financial
condition of the defaulting spouse is changed.
  Where an application is made to punish an offender for an offense
committed with respect to an enforcement procedure under the civil
practice law and rules, if the offender appear and comply and satisfy
the court or a judge before whom the application shall be pending that
he has at the time no means or property or income which could be levied
upon pursuant to an execution issued in such an enforcement procedure,
the court or judge shall deny the application to punish the offender
without prejudice to the applicant's rights and without prejudice to a
renewal of the application upon notice and after proof that the
financial condition of the offender has changed.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 37 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1985–2026 · leading case: Galanos v. Galanos, 46 A.D.3d 507 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2007).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Galanos v. Galanos, 46 A.D.3d 507 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2007). “Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the order of contempt contained a description of the acts she committed constituting the contempt, and set forth the required recital that the contemptuous conduct was “calculated to, or actually did, defeat, impair, impede, or prejudice…”
Lundgren v. Lundgren, 127 A.D.3d 938 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2015). “Moreover, as there is no evidence in the record which would establish that the Supreme Court informed the defendant of his right to the assistance of counsel in connection with the contempt proceedings (see Judiciary Law § 770; Matter of Bader v Hazzis, 77 AD3d 742 [2010]), the…”
Stempler v. Stempler, 200 A.D.2d 733 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 1994). “v Rickman, 98 AD2d 790, 792 , quoting Judiciary Law § 770; see also, Quantum Heating Servs.”
Farkas v. Farkas, 209 A.D.2d 316 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep't 1994). “Moreover, there must be a recital to that effect (Judiciary Law § 770; see, Oppenheimer v Oscar Shoes, 111 AD2d 28, 29).”
Wills v. Wills, 283 A.D.2d 1023 (N.Y. App. Div. 4th Dep't 2001). “With respect to defendant’s remaining contentions, which essentially assert that the contempt adjudication is not a valid order of either civil or criminal contempt, we note that plaintiff implicitly concedes that the contempt adjudication may be upheld only as an order of…”
Quantum Heating Servs. Inc. v. Austern, 121 A.D.2d 437 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 1986). · cites it 2× “This court reversed the order after finding that (1) although "appellants’ responses were, on their face, false and evasive, amounting to no answer at all”, they were entitled to a hearing since they purported to offer an explanation for their evasion, and (2) the order appealed…”
Vastwin Investments, Ltd. v. Aquarius Media Corp., 295 A.D.2d 216 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep't 2002). “The absence of the required recital pursuant to Judiciary Law § 770 was, under the circumstances obtaining where the grounds for the necessary recital were plainly set forth on the record, a mere irregularity and we, accordingly, modify only to include the required language in…”
Fishel v. New York State Div. of Hous. & Cmty. Renewal, 172 A.D.2d 835 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 1991). “12, at 51-55—51-56, quoting from Judiciary Law § 770). "A civil contempt is one where the rights of an individual have been harmed by the contemnor’s failure to obey a court order * * *.”
Peters v. Sage Grp. Assocs., Inc., 238 A.D.2d 123 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep't 1997). “The omission of the required recital (Judiciary Law § 770; cf., Farkas v Farkas, 209 AD2d 316, 319 ) from the court’s order was, under the circumstances, a mere irregularity not affecting the substantial rights of the parties, which this Court has the inherent power to correct…”
Oxman v. Oxman, 184 A.D.3d 404 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep't 2020). “tiff wife in contempt for violating an order of protection, same court and Justice, entered on or about May 10, 2016, and sanctioned her $10,000 pursuant to Judiciary Law § 753, awarded defendant husband, pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 238, $10,000 in attorneys' fees…”
Kasal v. Kasal, 297 A.D.2d 624 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2002). “Moreover, pursuant to Judiciary Law §§770 and 773, incarceration is not the exclusive punishment to be imposed upon a finding of contempt.”
Cohen v. Cohen, 33 Misc. 3d 448 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2011). “(Clemens v Clemens, 29 AD3d 932 [2006]; see Judiciary Law § 770; Holmes v Holmes, 89 AD2d 921 [1982]; Family Ct Act § 262 [a] [vi]; Matter of Dell v Dell, 135 AD2d 475 [1987].”
Show all 37 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.