Vogel v. Schenck

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Vogel v. Schenck

12 A.D.2d 924, 211 N.Y.S.2d 107, 1961 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12398

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

DecidedFebruary 28, 1961

StatusPublished

This text of 12 A.D.2d 924 (Vogel v. Schenck) 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

Vogel v. Schenck, 12 A.D.2d 924, 211 N.Y.S.2d 107, 1961 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12398 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1961).

Pincite

Opinion

Order entered on April 14, 1960, insofar as it denied appellants’ motion to dismiss the amended complaint for legal insufficiency, unanimously reversed, on the law, with $20 costs and disbursements to appellants, the motion granted, and the amended complaint dismissed, with $10 costs, without prejudice to the commencement of any other action which respondents deem advisable. The Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity and the Contract Carrier Permit are not “merchandise” or “fixtures” within the meaning of those terms as used in section 44 of the Personal Property Law (Bulk Sales Act). Moreover, although such certificates and permits may be assignable under conditions prescribed by the issuing authorities, they are neither goods nor chattels nor are they other personal property expressly declared by law to be subject to levy by virtue of execution within section 679 of the Civil Practice Act. 'Concur — Breitel, J. P., Rabin, Valente, Stevens and Eager, JJ.

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

Order entered on April 14, 1960, insofar as it denied appellants’ motion to dismiss the amended complaint for legal insufficiency, unanimously reversed, on the law, with $20 costs and disbursements to appellants, the motion granted, and the amended complaint dismissed, with $10 costs, without prejudice to the commencement of any other action which respondents deem advisable. The Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity and the Contract Carrier Permit are not “merchandise” or “fixtures” within the meaning of those terms as used in section 44 of the Personal Property Law (Bulk Sales Act). Moreover, although such certificates and permits may be assignable under conditions prescribed by the issuing authorities, they are neither goods nor chattels nor are they other personal property expressly declared by law to be subject to levy by virtue of execution within section 679 of the Civil Practice Act. 'Concur — Breitel, J. P., Rabin, Valente, Stevens and Eager, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

12 A.D.2d 924, 211 N.Y.S.2d 107, 1961 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12398, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vogel-v-schenck-nyappdiv-1961.