George Rallis, Inc. v. Flowers by Towers, Inc.

24 A.D.2d 944, 265 N.Y.S.2d 328, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2801

This text of 24 A.D.2d 944 (George Rallis, Inc. v. Flowers by Towers, 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
George Rallis, Inc. v. Flowers by Towers, Inc., 24 A.D.2d 944, 265 N.Y.S.2d 328, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2801 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1965).

Opinion

Order, entered on June 23, 1965, unanimously modified on the law to grant priority to the State of New York to its claim for $336.61 to the funds in the hands of the receiver, and otherwise affirmed, with $30 costs and disbursements to appellant. The State, through the Industrial Commissioner, asserted a priority claim for unemployment insurance taxes unpaid by the judgment debtor. The claim consisted of two items, one of $336.61 for such taxes unpaid by the debtor, and one for $116.09 for such taxes owing by another debtor who made a bulk sale to the judgment debtor. As to the latter, we agree with the disposition made by Special Term. As to the taxes unpaid by the debtor, the State has a priority right despite the reduction to possession by the receiver for the judgment creditor (Matter of Smith v. Meader Pen Corp., 255 App. Div. 397, affd. 280 N. Y. 554). Respondent seeks to distinguish the situation where the State has a lien hy virtue of specific statute, admitting that in that situation it has a right to priority, with the corollary that in others it has not. On the contrary, the State’s right to priority extends to all claims (Marshall v. New York, 254 U. S. 380, 383). It is only defeated where the lien is inchoate and has not been asserted prior to passage of title by conveyance or lien. The receiver’s rights are defined by CPLR 5228. He [945]*945has neither title nor a lien (see Third Preliminary Report o£ Advisory Committee on Practice and Procedure, p. 281 [1959]). There was no impediment to appellant’s right of priority. Concur — Valente, J. P., McNally, Eager and S.teuer, JJ.

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

Related

Marshall v. New York
254 U.S. 380 (Supreme Court, 1920)
Matter of Smith v. Meader Pen Corporation
20 N.E.2d 13 (New York Court of Appeals, 1939)
Smith v. Meader Pen Corp.
255 A.D. 397 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1938)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
24 A.D.2d 944, 265 N.Y.S.2d 328, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2801, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/george-rallis-inc-v-flowers-by-towers-inc-nyappdiv-1965.