Case Name: EAST RIVER NAT. BANK v. DE LACY et al.
Court: New York City Court
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1901-12
Citations: 74 N.Y.S. 925
Docket Number: 
Parties: EAST RIVER NAT. BANK v. DE LACY et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 74
Pages: 925–926

Head Matter:
EAST RIVER NAT. BANK v. DE LACY et al.
(City Court of New York, General Term.
December, 1901.)
Contempt of Court—Fine—Damages—Amount—Proof.
Under Code Civ. Proc. § 2284, relating to proceedings to punish a contempt of court other than criminal, providing that if an actual loss has been produced a fine must be imposed not exceeding the amount of complainant’s costs and expenses and $250 in addition thereto, it was improper to impose a fine of more than $250 and costs and expenses, there being no proof of the damage actually sustained, for the purpose of indemnifying the aggrieved party.
Appeal from special term.
Action by the East River National Bank against Thomas R. De Lacy and Isaac L. Smith. From an order fining defendants for contempt of court, they appeal.
Modified.
Argued before FITZSIMONS, C. J„ and SCHUCHMAN and DELFHANTY, JJ.
Charles Goldzier, for appellants.
Morgan & Mitchell (Rollin M. Morgan, of counsel), for respondent.

Opinion:
SCHUCHMAN, J.
Section 2284 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that:
"If an actual loss or injury has been produced to a party to an action or special proceeding, by reason of the misconduct proved against the offender, a fille sufficient to indemnify the aggrieved party must be imposed. Where it is not shown that an actual loss or injury has been produced, a fine must be imposed not exceeding the amount of complainant's costs and expenses and $250 in addition thereto."
There is no proof in this matter of the damage actually sustained for the purpose of indemnifying the aggrieved party. The damage must be proved as in an action. It therefore appears that the fine imposed was far in excess of the sum which the court had power to inflict in the absence of proof of the extent of the loss sustained. Moffat v. Herman, 116 N. Y. 131, 22 N. E. 287; Burnham v. Denike, 53 App. Div. 407, 65 N. Y. Supp. 1028. Therefore the fine could not have exceeded the sum of $250 and costs and expenses. Order modified by reducing fine to $250, and $30 costs, and as so modified affirmed, without costs.
Order modified, and as so modified affirmed, without costs. All concur.