In re Universal Ice Cream Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Universal Ice Cream Corp.

62 A.D.2d 1062, 404 N.Y.S.2d 138, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11152

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

DecidedApril 24, 1978

StatusPublished

This text of 62 A.D.2d 1062 (In re Universal Ice Cream Corp.) 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 Universal Ice Cream Corp., 62 A.D.2d 1062, 404 N.Y.S.2d 138, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11152 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding to determine the priority of claims arising out of a general assignment for the benefit of creditors, the appeal, as limited by appellants’ brief is from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated December 7, 1976, as disallowed their claims for severance pay. Order reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, without costs or disbursements, the appellants’ claims are allowed, and the proceeding is remanded to the Special Term for the entry of an appropriate amended order in accordance herewith. The agreement between the union and the assignor to compute severance pay by including the years of the employees’ service with the predecessor employer was an original promise. Thus the Statute of Frauds was not a defense to that agreement (see Richardson Press v Albright, 224 NY 497; Bulkley v Shaw, 289 NY 133). Titone, J. P., Suozzi, Margett and O’Connor, JJ., concur.

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

In a proceeding to determine the priority of claims arising out of a general assignment for the benefit of creditors, the appeal, as limited by appellants’ brief is from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated December 7, 1976, as disallowed their claims for severance pay. Order reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, without costs or disbursements, the appellants’ claims are allowed, and the proceeding is remanded to the Special Term for the entry of an appropriate amended order in accordance herewith. The agreement between the union and the assignor to compute severance pay by including the years of the employees’ service with the predecessor employer was an original promise. Thus the Statute of Frauds was not a defense to that agreement (see Richardson Press v Albright, 224 NY 497; Bulkley v Shaw, 289 NY 133). Titone, J. P., Suozzi, Margett and O’Connor, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

62 A.D.2d 1062, 404 N.Y.S.2d 138, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11152, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-universal-ice-cream-corp-nyappdiv-1978.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack