You are here: / / THE CONTEMPT APPLICATIONS IN THIS NEGLECT/CUSTODY PROCEEDING WERE JURISDICTIONALLY...
,

THE CONTEMPT APPLICATIONS IN THIS NEGLECT/CUSTODY PROCEEDING WERE JURISDICTIONALLY DEFECTIVE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the contempt charges in this neglect/custody proceeding were jurisdictionally defective:

We… conclude that the court erred in granting in part plaintiff’s contempt applications because they were jurisdictionally defective under Judiciary Law § 756. Section 756 provides that a contempt “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 together with the following legend . . . : WARNING: YOUR FAILURE TO APPEAR IN COURT MAY RESULT IN YOUR IMMEDIATE ARREST AND IMPRISONMENT FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT.” It is well settled that the failure to include the notice or the warning language of Judiciary Law § 756 constitutes a jurisdictional defect, requiring the court to deny the application … .

Here, it is undisputed that plaintiff’s initial and amended contempt applications did not include, verbatim, the required warning language of Judiciary Law § 756. Importantly, plaintiff’s contempt applications omitted the language warning defendant that his “failure to appear in court may result in [his] immediate . . . imprisonment for contempt of court” (id.). Thus, because plaintiff’s contempt applications failed to include the required warning language, they did not strictly comply with Judiciary Law § 756, rendering them jurisdictionally defective … . Rennert v Rennert, 2021 NY Slip Op 01630, Fourth Dept 3-19-21

 

You might also like
DEFENDANTS DEMONSTRATED THEY DID NOT HAVE NOTICE OF THE DOG’S VICIOUS PROPENSITIES, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED IN THIS DOG BITE CASE (FOURTH DEPT).
RESCISSION IS NOT APPROPRIATE WHERE THE PARTIES CANNOT BE RETURNED TO THE STATUS QUO; A BREACH OF CONTRACT CAUSE OF ACTION MUST BE DISMISSED IF DAMAGES ARE NOT ESTABLISHED (FOURTH DEPT).
THE PEOPLE DID NOT OBTAIN PERMISSION TO PRESENT TO A SECOND GRAND JURY RENDERING THE SECOND INDICTMENT VOID (FOURTH DEPT).
DEFENDANT MADE A LEFT TURN IN FRONT OF AN ONCOMING CAR IN VIOLATION OF VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW, PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT (FOURTH DEPT).
Defendant Not Given Adequate Time to Decide Whether to Testify Before the Grand Jury—Conviction Reversed
MIDTRIAL ORAL MOTION TO SUPPRESS, MADE AFTER THE PEOPLE BELATEDLY PROVIDED THE SEARCH WARRANT APPLICATION, REQUIRED A HEARING; COURT’S SUA SPONTE DENIAL OF THE MOTION WAS IMPROPER.
Stay of Arbitration Properly Denied, Collective Bargaining Agreement Allowed Issue to Be Determined in Arbitration
PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY HAD REPRESENTED THE DEFENDANT IN THIS CASE IN A MATTER INVOLVING SUBSTANTIALLY SIMILAR ALLEGATIONS OF MEDICAL MALPRACTICE; THE MOTION TO DISQUALIFY PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY AND THE ATTORNEY’S SMALL LAW FIRM SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).

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

THE GENETIC MARKER TESTING TO ESTABLISH PATERNITY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ORDERED... STATEMENTS MADE AFTER DEFENDANT ASSERTED HIS RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT SHOULD HAVE...