From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Sport-Craft, Inc., v. Lasker

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department
Dec 8, 1941
177 Misc. 872 (N.Y. App. Term 1941)

Opinion

December 8, 1941.

Appeal from the City Court of the City of New York, County of New York.

Shearman Sterling [ Henry Harfield of counsel], for the third party, appellant.

Abraham Unger [ Alfred L. Tanz of counsel], for the respondent.


The fair intendment of sections 3670 and 3672 of the Internal Revenue Code (U.S. Code, tit. 26, §§ 3670, 3672) was to permit the transfer of property, both real and personal, belonging to a person who had neglected or failed to pay tax, without the lien of the government attaching to the property unless the government complied with the above-mentioned sections by filing a notice of lien in the District Court where the property was located. In this regard it is similar to our recording acts. Here, however, the Collector of Internal Revenue served a notice of levy and a warrant of distraint under section 3710 of the same statute. This was an actual levy by the Collector upon the property of the tax debtors and was paramount to the judgment creditor's claim.

Order reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion denied.

All concur. Present — McCOOK, HAMMER and McLAUGHLIN, JJ.


Summaries of

Sport-Craft, Inc., v. Lasker

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department
Dec 8, 1941
177 Misc. 872 (N.Y. App. Term 1941)
Case details for

Sport-Craft, Inc., v. Lasker

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of Supplementary Proceedings; SPORT-CRAFT, INC., Judgment…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department

Date published: Dec 8, 1941

Citations

177 Misc. 872 (N.Y. App. Term 1941)
32 N.Y.S.2d 360

Citing Cases

United States v. Sands

It is supported by wholly analogous state cases of persuasive, even if not legally controlling, authority.…

United States v. Ruby Luggage Corp.

The situation is different as to defendant Hochhauser. Here the Government served notice of levy and warrant…