In the Matter of Harvey v. Jacon, 79 N.Y.2d 940 (1992)
r
r
A court may exercise its summary contempt power when a party willfully disobeys a clear and unambiguous judicial order in the court’s presence.
r
r
Summary
r
Harvey, an Assistant District Attorney, was held in summary criminal contempt by Jacon, an Acting Justice of the Supreme Court, for refusing to leave the well area of the courtroom after being explicitly ordered to do so. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division’s judgment, holding that Harvey’s conduct satisfied the prerequisites for summary contempt. The Court emphasized that a party cannot disregard a court order, regardless of whether the order is perceived as erroneous. Additionally, the Court rejected Harvey’s claims that his due process rights were violated or that the mandate was defective.
r
r
Facts
r
r
During a calendar call presided over by Acting Supreme Court Justice Jacon, Assistant District Attorney Harvey was ordered to leave the well area of the courtroom.r
Harvey refused to comply with the Justice’s direct order.r
As a result of his refusal, Justice Jacon held Harvey in summary criminal contempt.r
r
r
Procedural History
r
r
The Acting Justice of the Supreme Court held Harvey in summary criminal contempt.r
Harvey appealed the contempt order. The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court’s judgment. Harvey then appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.r
The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division’s decision, upholding the summary contempt order.r
r
r
Issue(s)
r
r
Whether the Assistant District Attorney’s statements and conduct satisfied the prerequisites for an adjudication of summary contempt.r
Whether the Assistant District Attorney’s due process rights were violated.r
Whether the mandate was defective under Judiciary Law § 752.r
r
r
Holding
r
r
Yes, because Harvey willfully refused to exit the well area after an explicit and unambiguous judicial order to do so, satisfying the requirements of Judiciary Law § 750 (A) (3), (4).r
No, the Assistant District Attorney’s due process rights were not violated.r
No, the mandate was not defective under Judiciary Law § 752.r
r
r
Court’s Reasoning
r
r
The Court of Appeals held that Harvey’s willful refusal to obey a clear and unambiguous judicial order constituted grounds for summary contempt. The Court relied on Judiciary Law § 750 (A) (3), (4), which allows for summary contempt when a party engages in