Gordon O'Neill Co. v. Ward

New York Supreme Court

Gordon O'Neill Co. v. Ward

4 Misc. 2d 470, 32 N.Y.S.2d 559, 1941 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1347

CourtNew York Supreme Court

DecidedDecember 1, 1941

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 4 Misc. 2d 470 (Gordon O'Neill Co. v. Ward) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Gordon O'Neill Co. v. Ward, 4 Misc. 2d 470, 32 N.Y.S.2d 559, 1941 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1347 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1941).

Pincite

Opinion

Harry E. Schirick, J.

The judgment debtor surrendered her liquor license on May 23, 1941. On May 3, she had assigned her right to a refund to Blanche Clifford. On May 23, she executed a second assignment of the same refund to her attorney, Maurice Abrams. On September 17, this proceeding was begun on behalf of the judgment creditor, upon a judgment in the sum of $48.50.

Although the fund had not come into existence on May 3, when the assignment to Clifford was made, it still operated as an equitable assignment, and was valid as against the assignor [471]*471and any subsequent assignee who had notice, or did not part with a present consideration. (Titusville Iron Co. v. City of New York, 207 N. Y. 203.) From the record, it is clear that Abrams did have knowledge of the assignment to Clifford. It is also clear that he parted with no present consideration upon the strength of the assignment. Clifford’s claim is, therefore, superior to Abrams’.

It is not superior to the claim of the judgment creditor. As an equitable assignment, it must give precedence to a valid legal lien. (Matter of Atlas Advertising Agency v. Casa Cubana, 259 App. Div. 951.)

The motion of the assignee Blanche Clifford is, therefore, granted, with the exception of the sum of $48.50, which is directed to be paid to the judgment creditor.

The motion of the assignee Abrams is denied, with $10 costs.

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

Harry E. Schirick, J.

The judgment debtor surrendered her liquor license on May 23, 1941. On May 3, she had assigned her right to a refund to Blanche Clifford. On May 23, she executed a second assignment of the same refund to her attorney, Maurice Abrams. On September 17, this proceeding was begun on behalf of the judgment creditor, upon a judgment in the sum of $48.50.

Although the fund had not come into existence on May 3, when the assignment to Clifford was made, it still operated as an equitable assignment, and was valid as against the assignor [471]*471and any subsequent assignee who had notice, or did not part with a present consideration. (Titusville Iron Co. v. City of New York, 207 N. Y. 203.) From the record, it is clear that Abrams did have knowledge of the assignment to Clifford. It is also clear that he parted with no present consideration upon the strength of the assignment. Clifford’s claim is, therefore, superior to Abrams’.

It is not superior to the claim of the judgment creditor. As an equitable assignment, it must give precedence to a valid legal lien. (Matter of Atlas Advertising Agency v. Casa Cubana, 259 App. Div. 951.)

The motion of the assignee Blanche Clifford is, therefore, granted, with the exception of the sum of $48.50, which is directed to be paid to the judgment creditor.

The motion of the assignee Abrams is denied, with $10 costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

4 Misc. 2d 470, 32 N.Y.S.2d 559, 1941 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1347, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gordon-oneill-co-v-ward-nysupct-1941.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack