In re the General Assignment for the Benefit of Creditors of Lefkowitz

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the General Assignment for the Benefit of Creditors of Lefkowitz

250 A.D. 733, 293 N.Y.S. 478, 1937 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8660

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedFebruary 19, 1937

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 250 A.D. 733 (In re the General Assignment for the Benefit of Creditors of Lefkowitz) 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

In re the General Assignment for the Benefit of Creditors of Lefkowitz, 250 A.D. 733, 293 N.Y.S. 478, 1937 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8660 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1937).

Pincite

Opinion

Order vacating and setting aside assignment for the benefit of creditors and also vacating and setting aside an order authorizing and directing the sale of assets modified by striking therefrom the first, fourth and fifth ordering paragraphs; and as so modified affirmed, without costs. The order in respect to such paragraphs was unauthorized. (Partnership Law, § 51, subd. 2, [c]; Id. §§ 52, 54; Matter of Rader v. Goldoff, 223 App. Div. 455; see, also, Geitner v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 225 id. 451, 452; affd., 251 N. Y. 205; Citizens Trust Company of Binghamton v. Merselis, 148 Misc. 676, 679; affd., 244 App. Div. 845; affd., 271 N. Y. 539.) The matter is remitted to Special Term, where the parties may proceed in accordance with the provisions of section 54 of the Partnership Law, as they may be advised. Hagarty, Davis and Johnston, JJ., concur; Lazansky, P. J., and Close, J., dissent in so far as the vacatur of the assignment is concerned on the ground that the court had no power to vacate the assignment; otherwise concur.

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

Order vacating and setting aside assignment for the benefit of creditors and also vacating and setting aside an order authorizing and directing the sale of assets modified by striking therefrom the first, fourth and fifth ordering paragraphs; and as so modified affirmed, without costs. The order in respect to such paragraphs was unauthorized. (Partnership Law, § 51, subd. 2, [c]; Id. §§ 52, 54; Matter of Rader v. Goldoff, 223 App. Div. 455; see, also, Geitner v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 225 id. 451, 452; affd., 251 N. Y. 205; Citizens Trust Company of Binghamton v. Merselis, 148 Misc. 676, 679; affd., 244 App. Div. 845; affd., 271 N. Y. 539.) The matter is remitted to Special Term, where the parties may proceed in accordance with the provisions of section 54 of the Partnership Law, as they may be advised. Hagarty, Davis and Johnston, JJ., concur; Lazansky, P. J., and Close, J., dissent in so far as the vacatur of the assignment is concerned on the ground that the court had no power to vacate the assignment; otherwise concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

250 A.D. 733, 293 N.Y.S. 478, 1937 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8660, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-general-assignment-for-the-benefit-of-creditors-of-lefkowitz-nyappdiv-1937.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack