Bradford v. Amsterdam

Second Circuit

Bradford v. Amsterdam

424 F.2d 282, 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 10002

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedApril 2, 1970

Docket34374_1

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 424 F.2d 282 (Bradford v. Amsterdam) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bradford v. Amsterdam, 424 F.2d 282, 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 10002 (2d Cir. 1970).

Pincite

Opinion

424 F.2d 282

Robert L. BRADFORD, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Birdie AMSTERDAM, individually, and as a Justice of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Sidney Feldshuh, individually, and as a purported Referee, Edward Pious, individually, and as a purported Receiver of Bradford Audio Corporation, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 668.

Docket 34374.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

Argued April 1, 1970.

Decided April 2, 1970.

Robert L. Bradford, pro se.

Robert S. Hammer, Asst. Atty. Gen. (Louis J. Lefkowitz, Atty. Gen. of the State of New York, Samuel A. Hirshowitz, First Asst. Atty. Gen., on the brief), for defendant-appellee Hon. Birdie Amsterdam.

Victor Konow, New York City (Edward Pious, New York City, on the brief), for defendant-appellee Pious.

Richard Weinberger, New York City, Feldshuh & Frank, New York City, for defendant-appellee Feldshuh, on submission.

Before HAYS, and FEINBERG, Circuit Judges, and TIMBERS,* District Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Robert L. Bradford appeals from an order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Sylvester J. Ryan, J., dismissing his complaint, which sought damages of $3 million on allegations that defendants Birdie Amsterdam, a Justice of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Sidney Feldshuh, a court-appointed referee, and Edward Pious, a court-appointed receiver, criminally conspired to deprive him of property without due process of law. This appeal is an outgrowth of litigation in the state courts, fully described in Bradford Audio Corp. v. Pious, 392 F.2d 67 (2d Cir. 1968), which involved some of the same issues now raised before us. We have examined the record in that case, of which we take judicial notice, and the record in the appeal now before us, and we conclude that the district judge properly dismissed appellant's complaint.

Notes:

*

Of the District of Connecticut, sitting by designation

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

424 F.2d 282

Robert L. BRADFORD, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Birdie AMSTERDAM, individually, and as a Justice of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Sidney Feldshuh, individually, and as a purported Referee, Edward Pious, individually, and as a purported Receiver of Bradford Audio Corporation, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 668.

Docket 34374.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

Argued April 1, 1970.

Decided April 2, 1970.

Robert L. Bradford, pro se.

Robert S. Hammer, Asst. Atty. Gen. (Louis J. Lefkowitz, Atty. Gen. of the State of New York, Samuel A. Hirshowitz, First Asst. Atty. Gen., on the brief), for defendant-appellee Hon. Birdie Amsterdam.

Victor Konow, New York City (Edward Pious, New York City, on the brief), for defendant-appellee Pious.

Richard Weinberger, New York City, Feldshuh & Frank, New York City, for defendant-appellee Feldshuh, on submission.

Before HAYS, and FEINBERG, Circuit Judges, and TIMBERS,* District Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Robert L. Bradford appeals from an order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Sylvester J. Ryan, J., dismissing his complaint, which sought damages of $3 million on allegations that defendants Birdie Amsterdam, a Justice of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Sidney Feldshuh, a court-appointed referee, and Edward Pious, a court-appointed receiver, criminally conspired to deprive him of property without due process of law. This appeal is an outgrowth of litigation in the state courts, fully described in Bradford Audio Corp. v. Pious, 392 F.2d 67 (2d Cir. 1968), which involved some of the same issues now raised before us. We have examined the record in that case, of which we take judicial notice, and the record in the appeal now before us, and we conclude that the district judge properly dismissed appellant's complaint.

Notes:

*

Of the District of Connecticut, sitting by designation

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

424 F.2d 282, 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 10002, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bradford-v-amsterdam-ca2-1970.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack