Ungar v. Sarafite

• Decision Date: 04 April 1963
• Citation: 12 N.Y.2d 1104,240 N.Y.S.2d 168
• Parties: , 190 N.E.2d 539 Application of Sidney J. UNGAR, Appellant, v. Honorable Joseph A. SARAFITE, Judge of the Court of General Sessions of the County of New York, Respondent, to review a determination, etc. In the Matter of the Criminal Contempt of Sidney J. UNGAR, Appellant, Honorable Joseph A. Sarafite, Judge of the Court of General Sessions, Respondent.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

Page 168

240 N.Y.S.2d 168

12 N.Y.2d 1104, 190 N.E.2d 539

Application of Sidney J. UNGAR, Appellant, v. Honorable Joseph A. SARAFITE, Judge of the Court of General

Sessions of the County of New York, Respondent, to

review a determination, etc.

In the Matter of the Criminal Contempt of Sidney J. UNGAR,

Appellant, Honorable Joseph A. Sarafite, Judge of

the Court of General Sessions, Respondent.

Court of Appeals of New York.

April 4, 1963.

Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

The first proceeding was brought under the Civil Practice Act, § 1283 et seq., to review a determination of the Judge of the Court of General Sessions of the County of New York adjudging the petitioner guilty of criminal contempt and sentencing him to pay a fine of $250 or to serve a term of 30 days in jail and to serve a term of 10 days in jail. The second proceeding was an appeal from the order and judgment.

The Appellate Division in the first proceeding affirmed the determination and in the second proceeding dismissed the appeal.

The petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals, contending that he was deprived of his constitutional right to a fair hearing before an impartial judge in the Court of General Sessions, and that the incident, which was held to be a contempt of court, was not willful or deliberate, but was the inevitable outcome of the unprecedented tension and nervous strain to which the witness was subjected.

The Court of Appeals, 12 N.Y.2d 1013, 239 N.Y.S.2d 135, 189 N.E.2d 629, affirmed the orders.

Motions were made in the Court of Appeals for reargument and to amend the remittitur.

Eve. m. Preminger, New York City, for appellant.

Frank S. Hogan, New York City (H. Richard Uviller and Richard R. Lutz, New York City, of counsel), for respondent.

Rhoda Hendrick Karpatkin, New York City, for New York Civil Liberties Union, as amicus curiae.

Motion for reargument denied. Motion to amend the remittitur granted, return of remittitur requested and, when returned, it will be amended by adding thereto the following: 'Upon the appeal herein there were presented and necessarily passed upon questions under the Constitution of the United States, viz.: Whether the rights of the appellant to due process under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States were violated. The appellant argued that such rights were violated by (1) the trial judge's refusal to grant an adjournment of the contempt proceeding upon proof of the...