Trustees of Columbia University v. Beachboard

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Trustees of Columbia University v. Beachboard

166 A.D.2d 322

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

DecidedOctober 23, 1990

StatusPublished

This text of 166 A.D.2d 322 (Trustees of Columbia University v. Beachboard) 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

Trustees of Columbia University v. Beachboard, 166 A.D.2d 322 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Francis Pécora, J.), entered on or about December 1, 1989, which, inter alia, deemed defendant’s motion to be one to vacate the order of the same court (B. Cohen, J.), entered on or about June 4, 1981, holding him in contempt of court and one to vacate the order of the same court (Richard Wallach, J.), entered on or about July 8, 1982, ordering the arrest of defendant by reason of said contempt of court, and denied said motion, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendant alleged only that the complaint against him was "inconvenient” and that no officer had as yet attempted to arrest him. These did not constitute cognizable grounds for vacatur of the prior orders of the court and his motion was therefore properly denied. Concur—Kupferman, J. P., Asch, Smith and Rubin, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Francis Pécora, J.), entered on or about December 1, 1989, which, inter alia, deemed defendant’s motion to be one to vacate the order of the same court (B. Cohen, J.), entered on or about June 4, 1981, holding him in contempt of court and one to vacate the order of the same court (Richard Wallach, J.), entered on or about July 8, 1982, ordering the arrest of defendant by reason of said contempt of court, and denied said motion, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendant alleged only that the complaint against him was "inconvenient” and that no officer had as yet attempted to arrest him. These did not constitute cognizable grounds for vacatur of the prior orders of the court and his motion was therefore properly denied. Concur—Kupferman, J. P., Asch, Smith and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

166 A.D.2d 322, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/trustees-of-columbia-university-v-beachboard-nyappdiv-1990.