Siegel v. Crawford
| Decision Date | 20 April 1944 |
| Citation | 292 N.Y. 651,55 N.E.2d 516 |
| Parties | Morris H. SIEGEL, Respondent, v. Harold J. CRAWFORD, Justice. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, 266 App.Div. 878, 42 N.Y.S.2d 837.
Proceeding in the matter of the application of Morris H. Siegel, petitioner, against Hon. Harold J. Crawford, Justice of the Municipal Court of the City of New York, to review a determination and order of the justice adjudging petitioner guilty of criminal contempt of court for refusal to testify at an examination before trial of an action brought by Mae harding.
The intervenor sued Morris H. Siegel in the Municipal Court of the City of New York, Borough of Queens for $95 for money had and received, and for like amount as a penalty under s 127 of the Insurance Law, Consol.Laws, c. 28. A violation of that section is a crime and also subjects the violator to a penalty. At an examination of the defendant before trial, held before the respondent justice, defendant invoked his constitutional privilege by refusing to answer certain questions on the ground that the answers might tend to show that he was guilty of a crime and to subject him to a penalty or forfeiture.
The order was annulled by the Appellate Division, 266 App.Div. 878, 42 N.Y.S.2d 837, on the ground that the justice had no power to deprive petitioner of his constitutional privilege. A motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals was denied by the Appellate Division as well as a motion to amend the order nunc pro tunc 266 App.Div. 923, 44 N.Y.S.2d 471. From the order of the Appellate Division the intervenor appeals.
Affirmed.E. F. W. Widermuth, of New York City (Joseph Lonardo, of Flushing, and Irving M. Radin, of New York City, on the brief) for appellant.
Lawrence S. Timen, of New York City (Harris Jay Griston, of New York City, of counsel)for respondent.
Order affirmed with costs.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Steinbrecher v. Wapnick
...373, 71 S.Ct. 438, 95 L.Ed. 344; People ex rel. Taylor v. Forbes, 143 N.Y. 219, 229--231, 38 N.E. 303, 305--307; Matter of Siegel v. Crawford, 292 N.Y. 651, 55 N.E.2d 516, affg. 266 App.Div. 878, 42 N.Y.S.2d 837; Foster v. People, 18 Mich. 266, 274; 8 Wigmore, Evidence (McNaughton's rev. ed......
-
Hudson Tire Mart, Inc. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co.
...Turner, 309 F.2d 69 (2d Cir. 1962); Steinbrecher v. Wapnick, 24 N.Y.2d 354, 300 N.Y.S.2d 555, 248 N.E.2d 419 (1969); Siegel v. Crawford, 292 N.Y. 651, 55 N.E.2d 516 (1944); Gross v. United States Fire Ins. Co., 71 Misc.2d 815, 337 N.Y.S.2d 221 (Sup.Ct., Kings Co., 1972). Appellant's argumen......
-
Southbridge Finishing Co. v. Golding
...to claim his privilege of not answering further questions designed to show that he had some connection. Similarly, in Siegel v. Crawford, 292 N.Y. 651, 55 N.E.2d 516, it was held to be erroneous to compel a witness to answer merely because he had answered earlier questions on the In Arndste......
-
David Webb, Inc. v. Rosenstiel
...or even where some answers have already been given on an examination before trial (Steinbrecher v. Wapnick, supra; Matter of Siegel v. Crawford, 292 N.Y. 651, 55 N.E.2d 516, aff'g. 266 App.Div. 878, 42 N.Y.S.2d 837). The plea has even been permitted to bar inquiry of the legally designated ......