## Facts

- William M. Kunstler represented a criminal defendant convicted after a jury trial before Justice Thomas B. Galligan.
- Kunstler moved under CPL 440.10 to vacate the conviction, alleging a juror read media accounts of the trial and discussed them with other jurors.
- When the motion appeared on the calendar, the judge denied it immediately, without oral argument or an evidentiary hearing, and directed the clerk to call the next case.
- Kunstler protested the denial as unlawful and insisted a hearing was required where outside influences on jurors were alleged.
- During the exchange, Kunstler criticized the judge as “partisan,” stated he “shouldn’t be sitting,” and called him “a disgrace to the bench,” while also accusing the judge of violating standards of fairness.
- The judge summarily adjudged Kunstler in criminal contempt in open court and imposed a sanction of $250 or 30 days in jail.
- The judge later issued written decisions denying the CPL 440.10 motion and recusal request and separately stating reasons for the summary contempt.
- Kunstler commenced an Article 78 proceeding seeking to annul the contempt adjudication.

## Issues

1. Whether Kunstler’s disrespectful, critical statements to the judge in open court constituted summary criminal contempt.
2. Whether the judge’s summary contempt procedure provided the minimal opportunity to be heard required for criminal contempt imposed without ordinary notice and hearing.

## Decision

- The Appellate Division granted the Article 78 petition and annulled the summary criminal contempt adjudication.
- The court held the record did not justify the extraordinary use of summary contempt against counsel.
- The court also found the procedure used did not provide adequate minimal safeguards for summary criminal contempt under the circumstances.

## Legal Principles

- Summary criminal contempt is an extraordinary power, subject to narrow limits and close appellate scrutiny, because the trial judge acts as both accuser and adjudicator.
- Summary contempt is generally reserved for conduct that immediately and seriously obstructs the administration of justice or poses an imminent threat to the court’s ability to proceed.
- Harsh, intemperate, and disrespectful criticism of a judge, when tied to advocacy over a ruling and not shown to obstruct proceedings, may be insufficient to support summary criminal contempt.
- Even when contempt is imposed “summarily,” basic procedural fairness applies, including a meaningful opportunity to be heard; after-the-fact written reasons do not necessarily cure deficiencies where immediate summary punishment was not necessary.

## Conclusion

The court vacated the contempt finding because counsel’s offensive courtroom criticism, viewed in context, did not amount to the kind of immediate obstruction that warrants summary criminal contempt, and the manner in which punishment was imposed failed to satisfy the limited procedural protections required even in summary proceedings.


Kunstler v. Galligan, 168 A.D.2d 146 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep’t 1991)