Kuriansky v. Bed-Stuy Health Care Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kuriansky v. Bed-Stuy Health Care Corp.

168 A.D.2d 432

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

DecidedDecember 3, 1990

StatusPublished

This text of 168 A.D.2d 432 (Kuriansky v. Bed-Stuy Health Care 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

Kuriansky v. Bed-Stuy Health Care Corp., 168 A.D.2d 432 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for medicaid fraud, the appeal is from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Vaccaro, J.), entered August 21, 1989, which held the appellants in contempt of a prior order of the same court dated September 22, 1987.

Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The appellants were properly found in contempt of the court’s prior order dated September 22, 1987. That order was clear and unequivocal, and, therefore, the appellants’ disobedience was properly punishable as contempt (see, Matter of Department of Envtl. Protection v Department of Envtl. Conservation, 70 NY2d 233, 240; Matter of McCormick v Axelrod, 59 NY2d 574, 583). Balletta, J. P., Miller, O’Brien and Ritter, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages for medicaid fraud, the appeal is from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Vaccaro, J.), entered August 21, 1989, which held the appellants in contempt of a prior order of the same court dated September 22, 1987.

Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The appellants were properly found in contempt of the court’s prior order dated September 22, 1987. That order was clear and unequivocal, and, therefore, the appellants’ disobedience was properly punishable as contempt (see, Matter of Department of Envtl. Protection v Department of Envtl. Conservation, 70 NY2d 233, 240; Matter of McCormick v Axelrod, 59 NY2d 574, 583). Balletta, J. P., Miller, O’Brien and Ritter, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

168 A.D.2d 432, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kuriansky-v-bed-stuy-health-care-corp-nyappdiv-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack