Case ID: ad_257/html/0631-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

In the Matter of the Application of James F. O’Kelly, Petitioner, for an Order against John Warren Hill, Presiding Justice of the Domestic Relations Court of the City of New York, Respondent.
    First Department,
    October 27, 1939.
    
      
      Peter L. F. Sabbatino of counsel [Edward J. Fontana with him on the brief], for the petitioner.
    
      Henry J. Shields of counsel [Paxton Blair with him on the brief; William C. Chanler, Corporation Counsel], for the respondent.
   Per Curiam.

The petitioner was only entitled to “ an opportunity of making an explanation ” (Dom. Rel. Ct. Act, §§ 16 and 17) after due notice upon written charges. (People ex rel. Lee v. Waring, 1 App. Div. 594; affd., 149 N. Y. 621; People ex rel. Throckmorton v. McCartney, 28 App. Div. 138; People ex rel. McNeile v. Glynn, 128 id. 257; People ex rel. Conti v. Kempner, 144 id. 339.) Since it is conceded that there was full compliance with these conditions, the determination should be confirmed, with fifty dollars costs and disbursements, and the petition dismissed.

Present — Martin, P. J., O’Malley, Townley, Glennon and Untermyer, JJ.

Determination unanimously confirmed, with fifty dollars costs and disbursements, and the petition dismissed.