Flushing National Bank v. Abrams

270 A.D. 911, 61 N.Y.S.2d 609, 1946 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4604
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedApril 29, 1946
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 270 A.D. 911 (Flushing National Bank v. Abrams) 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
Flushing National Bank v. Abrams, 270 A.D. 911, 61 N.Y.S.2d 609, 1946 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4604 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1946).

Opinion

In an action by a creditor to enforce against the purchaser of a dry cleaning establishment the liability provided for by section 44 of the Personal Property Law, after a trial before the court without a jury, the complaint was dismissed as to respondent on the merits, with costs. From the judgment entered thereon the plaintiff appeals. Judgment reversed on the law and the facts, with costs; judgment directed for the plaintiff for the relief provided for by the statute, with costs, and the matter remitted to Special Term for the entry of judgment accordingly. On June 8, 1944, when the purchase price was placed in escrow, and when possession of the property transferred was delivered to the purchaser, there were then, to [912]*912the knowledge of the purchaser and his attorney, at least three creditors. Under such circumstances the purchaser was required to comply with the provisions of section 44, and, having failed to do so, became responsible under subdivision 3 of that section. While it is true that the three creditors referred to were paid before June 13th, when the purchase price in escrow was released to the vendor and the vendor then executed and delivered an affidavit to the effect that he had no creditors, as we construe the statute, this subsequent development did not change the situation for legal purposes. The so-called “motion for a new trial” upon affidavits was, in effect, merely a motion for a reargument, and the denial of said motion does not raise any question for determination here. The appeal from the order entered thereon is, therefore, dismissed, without costs. Hagarty, Acting P. J., Carswell, Adel, Aldrich and Nolan, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Cleaners Products Supply, Inc. v. Garcia
165 Misc. 2d 365 (Civil Court of the City of New York, 1995)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
270 A.D. 911, 61 N.Y.S.2d 609, 1946 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4604, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/flushing-national-bank-v-abrams-nyappdiv-1946.