Burgos v. Pulse Combustion, Inc.

227 A.D.2d 295, 642 N.Y.S.2d 882
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMay 21, 1996
StatusPublished
Cited by12 cases

This text of 227 A.D.2d 295 (Burgos v. Pulse Combustion, Inc.) 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
Burgos v. Pulse Combustion, Inc., 227 A.D.2d 295, 642 N.Y.S.2d 882 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Anne Targum, J.), entered April 26,1995, which denied defendant-appellant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims against it, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The IAS Court correctly found issues of fact bearing upon appellant’s possible "mere continuation” and "consolidation or merger” successor liability (see, Schumacher v Richards Shear Co., 59 NY2d 239, 245). Evidence tending to support successor liability showed that appellant purchased almost all of the predecessor corporation’s fixed assets and intangibles; that the predecessor corporation apparently ceased to exist soon after the sale; that appellant assumed a name nearly identical to [296]*296that of the predecessor corporation; that at least one officer from the predecessor corporation was retained by appellant; and that the same products were manufactured at the plants transferred under the purchase agreement. The provisions of the purchase agreement that the assets were being sold free of "adverse charges of any nature”, that the predecessor corporation was responsible for all claims relating to defective products manufactured before the sale, that no stock or corporate records were being transferred and that appellant was not required to hire the predecessor corporation’s employees do not require a finding of no successor liability as a matter of law (see, Sweatland v Park Corp., 181 AD2d 243). Concur— Rosenberger, J. P., Wallach, Kupferman and Williams, JJ.

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

Related

Avamer 57 Fee LLC v. Hunter Boot USA LLC
2025 NY Slip Op 04607 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2025)
Jane Doe v. Roman Catholic Archdiocese of N.Y.
2024 NY Slip Op 31983(U) (New York Supreme Court, New York County, 2024)
Wass v. County of Nassau
2017 NY Slip Op 6317 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
Ring v. Elizabeth Foundation for the Arts
136 A.D.3d 525 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
Miot v. Miot
78 A.D.3d 464 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance v. Long Island Air Conditioning, Inc.
78 A.D.3d 801 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Koss v. Leach Co.
6 A.D.3d 665 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
Meadows v. Amsted Industries, Inc.
305 A.D.2d 1053 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)
Case v. Paul Troester Maschinenfabrik
139 F. Supp. 2d 428 (W.D. New York, 2001)
Ed Peters v. C & J Jewelry
First Circuit, 1997
Ed Peters Jewelry Co. v. C & J Jewelry Co.
124 F.3d 252 (First Circuit, 1997)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
227 A.D.2d 295, 642 N.Y.S.2d 882, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/burgos-v-pulse-combustion-inc-nyappdiv-1996.