Ruppert v. Erikson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ruppert v. Erikson

264 A.D. 748, 34 N.Y.S.2d 430, 1942 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4490

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

DecidedApril 29, 1942

StatusPublished

This text of 264 A.D. 748 (Ruppert v. Erikson) 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

Ruppert v. Erikson, 264 A.D. 748, 34 N.Y.S.2d 430, 1942 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4490 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1942).

Pincite

Opinion

Controversy between judgment creditor and assignees as to ownership of fund arising from the surrender of a liquor tax certificate. The money is now in the possession of the Comptroller of the State. The ownership of the fund may not be determined summarily. (Hunter Printing Co., Inc., v. Ace Restaurant, Inc., 258 App. Div. 1020.) There is an arguable controversy which should be determined in a plenary action. Order reversed on the law and facts, with ten dollars costs and disbursements to appellants Propper and Jacobs, d. b. a. Jacobs Business Service, and with ten dollars costs and disbursements to Miltwess Realty Company, Inc. Hill, P. J., Crapser, Bliss, Heffernan and Foster, JJ., concur.

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

Controversy between judgment creditor and assignees as to ownership of fund arising from the surrender of a liquor tax certificate. The money is now in the possession of the Comptroller of the State. The ownership of the fund may not be determined summarily. (Hunter Printing Co., Inc., v. Ace Restaurant, Inc., 258 App. Div. 1020.) There is an arguable controversy which should be determined in a plenary action. Order reversed on the law and facts, with ten dollars costs and disbursements to appellants Propper and Jacobs, d. b. a. Jacobs Business Service, and with ten dollars costs and disbursements to Miltwess Realty Company, Inc. Hill, P. J., Crapser, Bliss, Heffernan and Foster, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

264 A.D. 748, 34 N.Y.S.2d 430, 1942 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4490, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ruppert-v-erikson-nyappdiv-1942.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack