You are here: / / Judicial Hearing Officer Does Not Have Power to Find Non-Witness Guilty...
, ,

Judicial Hearing Officer Does Not Have Power to Find Non-Witness Guilty of Contempt

The First Department noted that a judicial hearing officer (JHO) does not have the power to find any person in contempt except a witness before him:

While CPLR 4311 and 4317(a) give a referee, upon consent of the parties, the power to hear and determine all trial issues before the court, CPLR 4301 specifically precludes a referee and, thus, a JHO from “adjudg[ing] any person except a witness before him guilty of contempt.” While [the JHO] had the power to make factual findings concerning violation of his orders, he was without power to adjudge persons in contempt because neither contempt finding involved behavior occurring before him … .  Hoffman v Helm Capital Group, Inc, 2013 NY Slip Op 02141, 603109/08, 9537A, 1st Dept 3-28-13

 

You might also like
HOMEOWNER’S EXCEPTION TO LABOR LAW 240 (1) LIABILITY APPLIED, DEFENDANTS DEMONSTRATED FREEDOM FROM FAULT UNDER LABOR LAW 200.
SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED ON PLAINTIFF’S ACCOUNT STATED CAUSE OF ACTION; CRITERIA EXPLAINED (FIRST DEPT).
THE SCAFFOLD COLLAPSED ENTITLING PLAINTIFF TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION; THE HEARSAY SUBMITTED IN OPPOSITION DID NOT DEFEAT THE MOTION (FIRST DEPT). ​
ALTHOUGH THE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY (LLC) VOTING AGREEMENT CONCERNED THE SALE OF REAL PROPERTY, IT WAS NOT SUBJECT TO THE STATUTE-OF-FRAUDS PROHIBITION OF ORAL AGREEMENTS (FIRST DEPT). ​
APPOINTMENT OF AN OUTSIDE ATTORNEY TO DETERMINE MERITS OF A DERIVATIVE SUIT NOT ALLOWED BY THE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY OPERATING AGREEMENTS (FIRST DEPT).
AN ARTICLE 78 REVIEW OF THE RESPONSE TO A FOIL REQUEST MAY ONLY CONSIDER THE GROUND FOR THE INITIAL AGENCY DECISION; THE GROUNDS FOR A SUBSEQUENT DECISION ISSUED AFTER THE ARTICLE 78 PROCEEDING WAS COMMENCED SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED; PETITIONER’S REQUEST FOR THE METADATA OF THE DISCLOSED DOCUMENTS MUST BE DENIED BECAUSE METADATA WAS NOT ‘REASONABLY DESCRIBED’ IN THE FOIL REQUEST (FIRST DEPT).
Pursuant to the Public Authorities Law, Interest on a Judgment To Be Paid by the New York City Transit Authority Cannot Exceed 3%
Where Plaintiff Was “Demoted” In Violation of an Employment Agreement, the Restrictive Covenants in the Agreement Are No Longer Enforceable

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Five-Day Time-Limit On Motion to Dismiss Based Upon Erroneous Information Provided... Relation-Back” and “Savings Clause” Statutes Explained