From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

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

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Nov 5, 1964
22 A.D.2d 769 (N.Y. App. Div. 1964)

Opinion

November 5, 1964


Order, entered on June 29, 1964, granting defendants' cross motions to dismiss the complaint and denying plaintiff's motion for the 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., Valente, McNally, Stevens and Eager, JJ.


Summaries of

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

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Nov 5, 1964
22 A.D.2d 769 (N.Y. App. Div. 1964)
Case details for

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

Case Details

Full title:RIK SHAW ASSOCIATES, LTD., Appellant, v. BRONZINI SHOPS, INC., et al.…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Nov 5, 1964

Citations

22 A.D.2d 769 (N.Y. App. Div. 1964)

Citing Cases

SONOPRESS UK LTD. v XANDRON, INC.

meone to examine it for him, and object if he disputes its correctness ( Peterson v IBJ Schroder Bank Trust…

SETH RUBENSTEIN, P.C. v. HOJANIDOV

This established an account stated. Rik Shaw Associates, Limited v. Bronzini Shops, Inc., 22 AD2d 769 (1st…