Abrams v. New York Foundation for the Homeless

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Abrams v. New York Foundation for the Homeless

190 A.D.2d 578

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedFebruary 11, 1993

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 190 A.D.2d 578 (Abrams v. New York Foundation for the Homeless) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Abrams v. New York Foundation for the Homeless, 190 A.D.2d 578 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

— Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Edward Greenfield, J.), entered May 28, 1992, which denied defendants’ motion to, inter alia, vacate a prior restraining order and which granted the plaintiff’s cross-motion to hold defendant Jerome Mackey in contempt, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The mere utterance of First Amendment privileges by a purported eleemosynary organization cannot shield defendants from the scrutiny of the Attorney-General (Ohio Civ. Rights Commn. v Dayton Schools, 477 US 619), and the Attorney-General is clearly empowered to supervise charitable corporations (in which category defendants claim the Foundation belongs), and to enjoin them from soliciting funds improperly (EPTL 8-1.4). Defendants’ persistent and willful defiance of the Supreme Court subpoena warrants the finding of contempt. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Wallach, Ross and Rubin, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

— Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Edward Greenfield, J.), entered May 28, 1992, which denied defendants’ motion to, inter alia, vacate a prior restraining order and which granted the plaintiff’s cross-motion to hold defendant Jerome Mackey in contempt, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The mere utterance of First Amendment privileges by a purported eleemosynary organization cannot shield defendants from the scrutiny of the Attorney-General (Ohio Civ. Rights Commn. v Dayton Schools, 477 US 619), and the Attorney-General is clearly empowered to supervise charitable corporations (in which category defendants claim the Foundation belongs), and to enjoin them from soliciting funds improperly (EPTL 8-1.4). Defendants’ persistent and willful defiance of the Supreme Court subpoena warrants the finding of contempt. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Wallach, Ross and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

190 A.D.2d 578, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/abrams-v-new-york-foundation-for-the-homeless-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack