City of New York v. Baker

New York Court of Appeals

City of New York v. Baker

386 N.E.2d 825, 46 N.Y.2d 790, 413 N.Y.S.2d 913, 1978 N.Y. LEXIS 2473

DecidedDecember 20, 1978

StatusPublished

This text of 386 N.E.2d 825 (City of New York v. Baker) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

City of New York v. Baker, 386 N.E.2d 825, 46 N.Y.2d 790, 413 N.Y.S.2d 913, 1978 N.Y. LEXIS 2473 (N.Y. 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed and the complaint reinstated, with costs.

[792]*792Whatever the limitations on the ultimate collection of any judgment that may be recovered, the bankruptcy court has neither issued a specific stay nor granted prior leave to the city to bring the present plenary suit against the defendants (trustees of a railroad in reorganization under subdivision [a] of section 77 of the Bankruptcy Act [US Code, tit 11, § 205, subd (a)]) for wharfage charges incurred after the commencement of the reorganization and for money damages for what, according to the complaint, are breaches of agreements to pay rentals and provide maintenance on certain properties during the same period. In addition, it cannot be determined beyond argument whether the litigation falls within the proscriptive scope of Order No. 1. Though the original leases between the railroad and the city were entered into and indeed expired prior to the bankruptcy, the bankrupt continued to occupy the premises on the same terms and conditions as holdover tenant following the institution of the reorganization proceeding.

Inasmuch as the reorganization court can stay any action that might impede or alter the bankrupt’s continued operation, we leave to that court the determination whether this litigation should be permitted to be prosecuted (see US Code, tit 28, § 959; Thompson v Texas Mexican Ry. Co., 328 US 134; see City of New York v Patton, 390 F Supp 1001; 6 Collier, Bankruptcy [14th ed], par 3.31, subd [2]).

Chief Judge Breitel and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Cooke concur in a memorandum.

Order reversed, etc.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed and the complaint reinstated, with costs.

[792]*792Whatever the limitations on the ultimate collection of any judgment that may be recovered, the bankruptcy court has neither issued a specific stay nor granted prior leave to the city to bring the present plenary suit against the defendants (trustees of a railroad in reorganization under subdivision [a] of section 77 of the Bankruptcy Act [US Code, tit 11, § 205, subd (a)]) for wharfage charges incurred after the commencement of the reorganization and for money damages for what, according to the complaint, are breaches of agreements to pay rentals and provide maintenance on certain properties during the same period. In addition, it cannot be determined beyond argument whether the litigation falls within the proscriptive scope of Order No. 1. Though the original leases between the railroad and the city were entered into and indeed expired prior to the bankruptcy, the bankrupt continued to occupy the premises on the same terms and conditions as holdover tenant following the institution of the reorganization proceeding.

Inasmuch as the reorganization court can stay any action that might impede or alter the bankrupt’s continued operation, we leave to that court the determination whether this litigation should be permitted to be prosecuted (see US Code, tit 28, § 959; Thompson v Texas Mexican Ry. Co., 328 US 134; see City of New York v Patton, 390 F Supp 1001; 6 Collier, Bankruptcy [14th ed], par 3.31, subd [2]).

Chief Judge Breitel and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Cooke concur in a memorandum.

Order reversed, etc.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

386 N.E.2d 825, 46 N.Y.2d 790, 413 N.Y.S.2d 913, 1978 N.Y. LEXIS 2473, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/city-of-new-york-v-baker-ny-1978.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack