Anonymous v. Arkwright
| Decision Date | 27 January 1958 |
| Parties | Matter of the Application of M. ANONYMOUS, Petitioner, v. Honorable George A. ARKWRIGHT, Justice of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Respondent, to review a determination and order of the respondent adjudging petitioner guilty of a criminal contempt of court. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Benjamin Groberg, Brooklyn, for petitioner.
Denis M. Hurley, Brooklyn, for respondent.
Before WENZEL, Acting P. J., and BELDOCK, MURPHY, UGHETTA, and KLEINFELD, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
By an order of this court dated January 21, 1957, as amended by a subsequent order dated February 11, 1957, a judicial inquiry and investigation was directed with respect to the improper practices and abuses by attorneys in Kings County and by persons acting in concert with them, as alleged in the petition of the Brooklyn Bar Association. In part, the order directed inquiry with respect to practices 'involving professional misconduct, fraud, deceit, corruption, crime and misdemeanor, by attorneys and by others acting in concert with them' and with 'respect to any and all conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice by attorneys and others acting in concert with them'. The order appointed an additional Special Term of the Supreme Court, to conduct the inquiry and investigation and provided that the inquiry and investigation shall be conducted by a named Justice of the Supreme Court, 'with full power to compel the attendance of witnesses, their testimony under oath and the production of all relevant books, papers and records'. An attorney nominated by the Brooklyn Bar Association was designated to aid the said Justice in the conduct of the inquiry and in the prosecution of said investigation. The order also provided that 'for the purpose of protecting the reputation of innocent persons, the said inquiry and investigation shall be conducted in private, pursuant to the provisions of the Judiciary Law (Section 90, subdivision 10); that all the facts, testimony and information adduced, and all papers relating to this inquiry and investigation, except this order, shall be sealed and be deemed confidential; and that none of such facts, testimony and information and none of the papers and proceedings herein, except this order, shall be made public or otherwise divulged until the further order of this court' and 'that upon the conclusion of said inquiry and investigation the said Justice shall make and file with this court his report setting forth his proceedings, his findings and his recommendations.'
On or about July 19, 1957 petitioner submitted to this court his resignation as an attorney and counsellor-at-law, but no order has been entered upon his purported resignation. Pursuant to subpoena, petitioner attended at the additional Special Term, was sworn and refused to answer certain questions. By this proceeding pursuant to article 78 of the Civil Practice Act, petitioner seeks to review the order of the additional Special Term adjudging him guilty of contempt and fining him $250. No issue is raised as to whether the review of the contempt order by an article 78 proceeding is proper.
Determination unanimously confirmed, without costs. The fine provided for in the order is to be paid within 30 days from the entry of the order hereon.
Petitioner challenges the power and jurisdiction of the Appellate Division to make the order, and the power and jurisdiction of the additional Special Term to conduct the investigation as to him, as he had resigned from the Bar. He did not refuse to answer on the ground that his answers might tend to incriminate him. He reserved his alleged constitutional rights to refuse to answer questions (N.Y.Const., art....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Utt v. State
... ... In Anonymous v. Baker, 360 U.S. 287, 79 S.Ct. 1157, 3 L.Ed.2d 1234 (1959), appellants had been found in contempt for refusing to answer pertinent questions put to ... Although we have held that in state criminal proceedings, which these are not, Matter of M. Anonymous v. Arkwright, (5 A.D.2d 790, 170 N.Y.S.2d 535, leave to appeal denied, 4 N.Y.2d 676, 173 N.Y.S.2d 1025, 149 N.E.2d 538 (1958) ), a defendant has an unqualified ... ...
-
Wyckoff v. O'Neil
... ... (In re Association of the Bar of the City of New York, 222 A.D. 580, 227 N.Y.S. 1; M. Anonymous v. Arkwright, 5 A.D.2d 790, 170 N.Y.S.2d 535) ... The printed form contract is a product of the Rochester Real Estate Board. The ... ...
-
People v. Ianniello
... ... It is, of course, a familiar proposition that the lawyer for a witness is not entitled to be present in the Grand Jury room (see, e.g., Anonymous Nos. 6 and 7 v. Baker, 360 U.S. 287, 292, 79 S.Ct. 1157, 3 L.Ed.2d 1234; Matter of Groban, 352 U.S. 330, 333, 77 S.Ct. 510, 1 L.Ed.2d 376; United ... People ex rel. McDonald v. Keeler, 99 N.Y. 463, 484--485, 2 N.E. 615, 625--627; Matter of Anonymous v. Arkwright, 5 A.D.2d 790, 791, 170 N.Y.S.2d 535, 536, mot. for lv. to app. den. 4 N.Y.2d 676, 173 N.Y.S.2d 1025). This rule rests upon the statutory exclusion ... ...
-
Anonymous Nos and v. Baker
... ... practices among segments of the Kings County Bar,1 ordered an investigation into these alleged conditions by an Additional Special Term of the Supreme Court, Mr. Justice Arkwright presiding.2 ... Appellants, licensed private detectives and investigators, but not attorneys, appeared before the Special Term pursuant to witness subpoenas, accompanied by counsel. The presiding justice, acting upon the authority of an appellate decision made during the course ... ...