This order, which inter alia, relieved appellant as counsel for defendant Bowens because the court concluded that counsel had not represented the defendant Bowens to the latter's satisfaction, was not a contempt order, notwithstanding appellant's characterization of it as such. (See Judiciary Law, § 753, subd. 3; §§ 754, 757.) Appellant's discussion of the Supreme Court's contempt power, in the context of this case, is irrelevant, and affords no basis...
Let's get started
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
- Updated daily.
- Uncompromising quality.
- Complete, Accurate, Current.