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

N.Y. Judiciary Law § 775 (2026)

When court may release offender

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NY-LEGnysenate.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar 
§ 775. When court may release offender. Where an offender, imprisoned
as prescribed in this article, is unable to endure the imprisonment, or
to pay the sum, or perform the act or duty, required to be paid or
performed, in order to entitle him to be released, the court, judge, or
referee may, in its or his discretion, and upon such terms as justice
requires, make an order, directing him to be discharged from the
imprisonment.
  Where the commitment was made to punish a contempt of court committed
with respect to an enforcement procedure under the civil practice law
and rules, and the offender has purged himself of contempt as provided
in section seven hundred seventy-two or seven hundred seventy-three of
this article, the court out of which the execution was issued shall make
an order directing him to be discharged from the imprisonment.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases, 1998–2003 · leading case: People ex rel. Kuby v. Warden, 305 A.D.2d 339 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
People ex rel. Kuby v. Warden, 305 A.D.2d 339 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003). “Judiciary Law § 775 provides that where an incarcerated offender is unable to perform the act or duty required to be performed, release is discretionary, and the court may direct the offender’s discharge “upon such terms as justice requires.”
People v. Fox, 178 Misc. 2d 1018 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1998). “(See, Judiciary Law § 775.) That he made the deliberate choice to pursue criminal means in an attempt to escape the consequences of his contempt of court did not render him vulnerable and does not make the ensuing statements involuntary.”
In re David G., 280 A.D.2d 477 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001). “The Family Court abused its discretion in refusing to release the intervenor-mother from custody in view of the fact that she was unable to “perform the act or duty, required to be * * * performed, in order to entitle [her] to be released” (Judiciary Law § 775). Specifically,…”
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.