Art. CONTEMPT. (Fiero, Spec. Pro., 3rd Ed., pp. 667-810.) I. Contempt defined and power of the court to punish therefor. III. Criminal contempts and their punishment. V. What constitutes civil contempt. VI. Proceedings, how commenced and carried on. IX. Appeals. ARTICLE I. CONTEMPT DEFINED AND POWER OF THE COURT TO PUNISH THEREFOR. (Fiero, Spec. Pro., 3rd Ed., pp. 674-678.) Our courts will not punish as for contempt disobedience of the orders made by the courts of sister states. Mills v. Mills (1916), 95 Misc. 231, 158 N. Y. Supp. 753. A trustee in bankruptcy in another State cannot be punished for contempt for disobedience of an order of a court of this State to produce the books and papers of the bankrupt. Jaffe v. Weld (1917), 167 N. Y. Supp. 1039. ARTICLE II. CIVIL AND CRIMINAL CONTEMPTS DISTINGUISHED. (Fiero, Spec. Pro., 3rd Ed., pp. 678-682.) In a criminal contempt punishment is imposed for the outrage on the majesty of the law and the authority of the court, in which case the fine goes to the people, while in a civil contempt for the violation of the right of a party, a fine is imposed as indemnity for the violation of that right. Koenig v. Eagle Waist Co. (1917), 176 App. Div. 724, 163 N. Y. Supp. 1021. ARTICLE III. CRIMINAL CONTEMPTS AND THEIR PUNISHMENT. 197 (Fiero, Spec. Pro., 3rd Ed., pp. 683-696.) SUBD. 1. Code and statutory provisions. 2. What constitutes criminal contempt. 3. Procedure for punishment. Subd. 1. Code and Statutory Provisions. (Fiero, Spec. Pro., 3rd Ed., pp. 683-685.) The only provision of law for convicting a person for criminal contempt is contained in section 750 of the Judiciary Law. Town of Wilmurt v. Wright (1918), 183 App. Div. 305. Subd. 2. What Constitutes Criminal Contempt. (Fiero, Spec. Pro., 3rd Ed., pp. 685-691.) An injunction order, although a judge's order in form, is in effect, under sections 606 and 3343, subdivision 2, of the Code of Civil Procedure, an order of the court, and wilful disobedience thereof may be punished on a criminal contempt. People ex rel. Empire Leasing Co. v. Mecca Realty Co. (1916), 174 App. Div. 384, 161 N. Y. Supp. 241. Where there is a criminal contempt for an outrage on the authority of the court, the question of the validity of the injunction order is immaterial if the court had jurisdiction of the subjectmatter, and the injunction must be obeyed until vacated or set aside by the court. Koenig v. Eagle Waist Co. (1917), 176 App. Div. 724, 163 N. Y. Supp. 1021. Under an injunction order restraining the lessee of a building and the sublessee of the roof thereof, their agents, servants and employees, from raising, altering or interfering with a certain sign upon the roof, all the parties mentioned who had knowledge of the terms of the injunction order and had been served there with, but still persisted in disobeying it, may be punished for a criminal contempt. People ex rel. Empire Leasing Co. v. Mecca R. Co. (1916), 174 App. Div. 384, 161 N. Y. Supp. 241. A justice who has no authority to grant an injunction has no power to punish the person to whom it is directed as for a criminal contempt for failing to obey it. Matter of Holle (1914), 160 AppDiv. 369, 145 N. Y. Supp. 388. Where one upon examination as to his qualifications to sit as a juror upon the trial of an indictment for keeping a disorderly house denied any acquaintance with either of the defendants, that he had ever been in the place charged as being a disorderly house, or that he had any knowledge thereof, and upon a motion to punish him for contempt, it appears that while the jury was deliberating upon a verdict he told other jurors that he was acquainted with one of the defendants, the place of business in question and that he had been in it several times before the trial, he will be adjudged guilty of criminal contempt. Matter of Nunns (1918), 104 Misc. 350, 172 N. Y. Supp. 167. An ex parte order adjudging a defendant guilty of criminal contempt in wilfully disobeying a writ of habeas corpus is unauthorized by section 2028 of the Code of Civil Procedure. People ex rel. Bishop v. Bishop (1918), 184 App. Div. 227. It seems, that a mere personal grievance of the judge, however well founded, is not sufficient ground for criminal contempt proceedings. The offense is against the dignity and authority of the court and not the judge personally. Town of Wilmurt v. Wright (1918), 183 App. Div. 305, 171 N. Y. Supp. 230. Although in a civil action brought by a town against a former supervisor for the conversion of town moneys the defendant has been adjudged guilty of a civil contempt in failing to pay over, and the court, with the consent of the town authorities, has ordered that he be released from imprisonment on the payment of certain moneys to the county treasurer and the payment of costs to the attorney for the town, which order was opposed by the town's attorney, the latter is not guilty of a criminal contempt of court by reason of the fact that, disregarding the order and without notice to the justice who made it, he, with the consent of the town, stipulated before another justice that the defendant should be discharged from imprisonment upon the payment of the whole amount of the agreed settlement to him as attorney for the town, which order was granted by the other justice, there being nothing whatever to show that said attorney did not have authority from the proper town officers to act for the town and receive the money for his client. Town of Wilmurt v. Wright (1918), 183 App. Div. 305, 171 N. Y. Supp. 230. Subd. 3. Procedure for Punishment. (Fiero, Spec. Pro., 3rd Ed., pp. 692-696.) The only provision of law for convicting a person for criminal contempt is contained in section 750 of the Judiciary Law. Town of Wilmurt v. Wright (1918), 183 App. Div. 305, 171 N. Y. Supp. 230. It is not essential to sustain a conviction for criminal contempt that the plaintiff show a cause of action for equitable relief as the fine goes to the people and not to the party aggrieved. Northland Rubber Co. v. International Auto League (1913), 143 N. Y. Supp. 9. ARTICLE V. WHAT CONSTITUTES CIVIL CONTEMPT. (Fiero, Spec. Pro., 3rd Ed., pp. 699-745.) SUBD. 1. Statutory and code provisions relating to contempt. 2. How and when judgments enforced by contempt proceedings. 4. Punishment of witnesses for contempt. 5. Contempts in connection with receiverships and receivers. 9. Contempts in matrimonial actions. CODE CIV. PRO., § 1773. When enforced by punishment for contempt. 11. Contempts in surrogate's court. CODE CIV. PRO., § 2557. When execution of decree or order is stayed by appeal. § 2761. Security to stay proceedings in case of commitments. § 2698. Surrogate may direct as to custody where coexecutors, etc., disagree. 12. Contempts in justice's court. 13. Miscellaneous decisions as to what constitutes a contempt. Subd. 1. Statutory and Code Provisions Relating to Contempt. (Fiero, Spec. Pro., 3rd Ed., pp. 701-704.) The Debtor and Creditor Law, section 15, subdivision 16, formerly section 21, subdivision 8, provides for the punishment as for contempt of any disobedience or violation of any order made or process issued in proceedings for a general assignment for the benefit of creditors. Subd. 2. How and When Judgments Enforced by Contempt Proceedings. (Fiero, Spec. Pro., 3rd Ed., pp. 704-707.) The enforcement of a judgment by contempt proceedings may be resorted to only under the circumstances specified in section 1241 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Harrison v. De Hart (1918), 103 Misc. 536. Section 1241 of the Code of Civil Procedure applies only to judgments and does not require service of a certified copy of an order as a condition precedent to a motion to punish as for contempt a disobedience thereof. Basch v. Associated Features Booking Co., Inc. (1915), 92 Misc. 450, 156 N. Y. Supp. 162. Where it is clear that the disobedience of an order directing payment of a sum of money defeats the remedy of plaintiff in the action, the court is in duty bound to punish respondent as for a contempt; should it thereafter appear that respondent was unable to pay the amount so directed to be paid he may apply for relief under section 775 of the Judiciary Law. Basch v. Associated Features Booking Co., Inc. (1915), 92 Misc. 450, 156 N. Y. Supp. 162. Where a defendant is not directed to pay the money into court, or to an officer of the court, he cannot be punished for contempt under this section. Coffin v. Coffin (1914), 161 App. Div. 215, 146 N. Y. Supp. 565. The court may punish as a contempt any act which is designed to and does defeat and circumvent its mandate, even when the letter of the decree has been executed. Thus where at the same time that a judgment of the Supreme Court, directing the cancellation of certain corporate stock issued to two of the defendants, was in form complied with, its effect was completely nullified by the reissuance of a part of the same stock to the attorneys of said defendants, the defendants and their attorney were guilty of contempt of court. Archer v. Turbo-Electric Constr. Co. (1914), 86 Misc. 310, 149 N. Y. Supp. 200. An order of the court requiring the sheriff to put a person into possession of real property supersedes the ancient writ of assistance as to actions brought under tit. 1 of ch. 14 of the Code and may be granted ex parte in the discretion of the court. Smith v. Brotsch (1917), 99 Misc. 371, 163 N. Y. Supp. 986. Where certain bonds held by a trust company as collateral security for two notes owned by it and made by defendant were levied upon under a warrant of attachment issued against him, and the trust company out of the proceeds of the sale of the bonds not only paid itself the amount of the notes but also took the same course with regard to two other notes payable to the defendant and owned by the company, a motion to compel it to pay over |