Board of Higher Education v. New York Higher Education Assistance Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Board of Higher Education v. New York Higher Education Assistance Corp.

41 A.D.2d 826, 342 N.Y.S.2d 708, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4643

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

DecidedApril 23, 1973

StatusPublished

This text of 41 A.D.2d 826 (Board of Higher Education v. New York Higher Education Assistance Corp.) 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

Board of Higher Education v. New York Higher Education Assistance Corp., 41 A.D.2d 826, 342 N.Y.S.2d 708, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4643 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1973).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered February 27; 1973, granting a preliminary injunction, unanimously affirmed, without costs and without disbursements, or. condition that plaintiffs-respondents proceed to trial in this matter no later than the June 1973 Term. Defendants-appellants may, upon a showing that the plaintiffs-respondents have failed to proceed expeditiously, apply at Special Term to be relieved of the injunction (cf. National Distillers é Ghem,. Gorp. v. Macy <& Co., 23 A D 2d 51, 54). The defendant corporation, created by State legislation to facilitate student education loans, had enacted regulations which in effect deprive present and future students of Manhattan Community College of loan guarantees based on • the prior default ratio of students in that College. Those students who had defaulted on their loans have already, in the main, left the College and are not under its supervision or control. In a matter as important as the assurance of continued education for a large segment of the student population of a college, the conditions existing prior to promulgation of the new regulations should be maintained, absent a showing by the defendants of irreparable damage (cf. Mathieu V. Franhel, 33 A D 2d 551). However, this court also recognizes that the defendants should not, absent a final judgment, be restrained for an unduly extended period of time. The order to be entered hereon should therefore provide that plaintiffs-respondents proceed to trial in this matter no later than the Jtfne 1973 Term. The defendants may, upon a showing that the plaintiffs have failed to proceed expeditiously, apply at Special Term to be relieved of the injunction (cf. National Distillers é Ghem. Gorp. v. Macy & Co., 23 A D 2d 51, 54, supra). Concur — Stevens, P. J., Nunez, Kupferman, Murphy and Lane, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered February 27; 1973, granting a preliminary injunction, unanimously affirmed, without costs and without disbursements, or. condition that plaintiffs-respondents proceed to trial in this matter no later than the June 1973 Term. Defendants-appellants may, upon a showing that the plaintiffs-respondents have failed to proceed expeditiously, apply at Special Term to be relieved of the injunction (cf. National Distillers é Ghem,. Gorp. v. Macy <& Co., 23 A D 2d 51, 54). The defendant corporation, created by State legislation to facilitate student education loans, had enacted regulations which in effect deprive present and future students of Manhattan Community College of loan guarantees based on • the prior default ratio of students in that College. Those students who had defaulted on their loans have already, in the main, left the College and are not under its supervision or control. In a matter as important as the assurance of continued education for a large segment of the student population of a college, the conditions existing prior to promulgation of the new regulations should be maintained, absent a showing by the defendants of irreparable damage (cf. Mathieu V. Franhel, 33 A D 2d 551). However, this court also recognizes that the defendants should not, absent a final judgment, be restrained for an unduly extended period of time. The order to be entered hereon should therefore provide that plaintiffs-respondents proceed to trial in this matter no later than the Jtfne 1973 Term. The defendants may, upon a showing that the plaintiffs have failed to proceed expeditiously, apply at Special Term to be relieved of the injunction (cf. National Distillers é Ghem. Gorp. v. Macy & Co., 23 A D 2d 51, 54, supra). Concur — Stevens, P. J., Nunez, Kupferman, Murphy and Lane, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

41 A.D.2d 826, 342 N.Y.S.2d 708, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4643, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/board-of-higher-education-v-new-york-higher-education-assistance-corp-nyappdiv-1973.