Legal Opinion

Kuriansky v. Natural Mold Shoe Corp.

New York Supreme Court

Decided September 11, 1986PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION OF THE COURT

Gerard E. Delaney, J.

This is an action pursuant to CPLR article 13-A for a declaration of forfeiture of the proceeds of a crime. Prior to commencement of the action, the criminal defendants herein were charged by indictment with various counts of grand larceny, offering false instruments for filing, falsifying business records and forgery in connection with an alleged scheme of overbilling Medicaid for orthopedic shoes and molds. The plaintiff seeks forfeiture of $1,357,106 plus costs.

Plaintiff has moved by order to show cause for (1) an order of attachment against the…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. People v. CoxNew York Court of Appeals · 1941
  2. Holtzman v. SamuelNew York Supreme Court · 1985
  3. Morgenthau v. Citisource, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1986
  4. Dillon v. Secular, New York County Courts1986

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Kuriansky v. Bed-Stuy Health Care Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1988
  2. Hynes v. DallasAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2011
  3. Kuriansky v. Natural Mold Shoe Corp.New York Supreme Court · 1987
  4. Morgenthau v. CliffordNew York Supreme Court · 1992
  5. Vergari v. LockhartNew York Supreme Court · 1989

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API