Rik Shaw Associates, Ltd. v. Bronzini Shops, Inc.

22 A.D.2d 769, 253 N.Y.S.2d 596, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2847
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided November 5, 1964·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

Order, entered on June 29, 1964, granting defendants’ cross motions to dismiss the complaint and denying plaintiff’s motion for the [770] appointment of a receiver in this action under the Bulk Sales Act (Personal Property Law, § 44), unanimously reversed, on the law and on the facts, with $30 costs and disbursements to appellant, the motion granted, with $10 costs, and the cross motions denied. The amount of plaintiff’s claim was known to defendant Bronzini of New York, Inc,, who received bills therefor totalling $13,968,94. The validity thereof was acknowledged by the payment of $3,500 on account. This constituted an account stated. The obligation was not contingent although unliquidated at the time of bulk sale. It was liquidated at the time of commencement of this action by the judgment against the debtor. Plaintiff was a creditor within the meaning of the Bulk Sales Act. (Royal Ind. Co. v. Ginsberg, 157 Misc, 507, 510-511,) Concur — Breitel, J. P., Yalente, McNally, Stevens and Eager, JJ.

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

Rik Shaw Associates, Ltd. v. Bronzini Shops, Inc., 22 A.D.2d 769, 253 N.Y.S.2d 596, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2847 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1964).

22 A.D.2d 769 (Rik Shaw Associates, Ltd. v. Bronzini Shops, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Chu v. Kim
2024 NY Slip Op 51842(U) (Poughkeepsie City Court, 2024)
Polygram S.A. v. 32-03 Enterprises, Inc.
697 F. Supp. 132 (E.D. New York, 1988)
Chisholm-Ryder Co. v. Sommer & Sommer
70 A.D.2d 429 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1979)
Parker Chapin Flattau & Klimpl v. Daelen Corp.
59 A.D.2d 375 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1977)