Langer v. Joed Stores Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Langer v. Joed Stores Corp.

26 A.D.2d 644, 272 N.Y.S.2d 630, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3690

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

DecidedJuly 5, 1966

StatusPublished

This text of 26 A.D.2d 644 (Langer v. Joed Stores 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

Langer v. Joed Stores Corp., 26 A.D.2d 644, 272 N.Y.S.2d 630, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3690 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to set aside a bulk sale for failure to comply with the requirements of former section 44 of the Personal Property Law (now contained in article 6 of the Uniform Commercial Code, effective Sept. 27, 1964), plaintiff (suing on behalf of himself and all other creditors similarly situated) appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, entered January 4, 1966, which dismissed the complaint at the close of plaintiff’s case. Judgment reversed on the law, and new trial granted, with costs to abide the event. No questions of fact have been considered. In our opinion, the court erred in dismissing the action upon the ground that, because there had been an assignment for the benefit of creditors of the defendant transferors, a cause of' action founded upon a violation of the bulk sales law belonged exclusively to the assignee thereunder. We find nothing to indicate that such is the intent or effect of subdivision 6 of section 15 of the Debtor and Creditor [645]*645Law (Weintraub v. Kahn, 6 Misc 2d 6, 8). In reversing upon this ground, we reach no other question. Christ, Acting P. J., Brennan, Hill, Rabin and Benjamin, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to set aside a bulk sale for failure to comply with the requirements of former section 44 of the Personal Property Law (now contained in article 6 of the Uniform Commercial Code, effective Sept. 27, 1964), plaintiff (suing on behalf of himself and all other creditors similarly situated) appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, entered January 4, 1966, which dismissed the complaint at the close of plaintiff’s case. Judgment reversed on the law, and new trial granted, with costs to abide the event. No questions of fact have been considered. In our opinion, the court erred in dismissing the action upon the ground that, because there had been an assignment for the benefit of creditors of the defendant transferors, a cause of' action founded upon a violation of the bulk sales law belonged exclusively to the assignee thereunder. We find nothing to indicate that such is the intent or effect of subdivision 6 of section 15 of the Debtor and Creditor [645]*645Law (Weintraub v. Kahn, 6 Misc 2d 6, 8). In reversing upon this ground, we reach no other question. Christ, Acting P. J., Brennan, Hill, Rabin and Benjamin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

26 A.D.2d 644, 272 N.Y.S.2d 630, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3690, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/langer-v-joed-stores-corp-nyappdiv-1966.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack