Stafford Security Co. v. Kremer

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Stafford Security Co. v. Kremer

138 Misc. 783, 247 N.Y.S. 362, 1930 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1740

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedDecember 16, 1930

StatusPublished

This text of 138 Misc. 783 (Stafford Security Co. v. Kremer) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Stafford Security Co. v. Kremer, 138 Misc. 783, 247 N.Y.S. 362, 1930 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1740 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1930).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The dismissal of the first five defenses was correct. We are also of the opinion that the dismissal of the sixth defense as pleaded was right. While a merely colorable transfer carried [784]*784out for the purpose of defrauding the tenant by preventing him from offsetting his demands might constitute a valid equitable defense (Horodenker Realty Co., Inc., v. Kramer, 185 N. Y. Supp. 67; Sheridan v. Mayor, 68 N. Y. 30, at p. 32) it should appear to substantiate such defense that the effect of the transfer would be to preclude the defendant from otherwise collecting his claim or enforcing his rights. (See Birdsall v. Read, 188 App. Div. 46.)

Final order and intermediate orders affirmed, with twenty-five dollars costs, with leave to appeal to the Appellate Division.

Ail concur; present, Lydon, Levy and Callahan, JJ.

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

Per Curiam.

The dismissal of the first five defenses was correct. We are also of the opinion that the dismissal of the sixth defense as pleaded was right. While a merely colorable transfer carried [784]*784out for the purpose of defrauding the tenant by preventing him from offsetting his demands might constitute a valid equitable defense (Horodenker Realty Co., Inc., v. Kramer, 185 N. Y. Supp. 67; Sheridan v. Mayor, 68 N. Y. 30, at p. 32) it should appear to substantiate such defense that the effect of the transfer would be to preclude the defendant from otherwise collecting his claim or enforcing his rights. (See Birdsall v. Read, 188 App. Div. 46.)

Final order and intermediate orders affirmed, with twenty-five dollars costs, with leave to appeal to the Appellate Division.

Ail concur; present, Lydon, Levy and Callahan, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

138 Misc. 783, 247 N.Y.S. 362, 1930 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1740, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stafford-security-co-v-kremer-nyappterm-1930.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack