Greenberg v. Modernage Furniture Co.

• Decision Date: 04 January 1938
• Citation: 12 N.E.2d 610,276 N.Y. 628
• Parties: Hilda GREENBERG, Appellant, v. MODERNAGE FURNITURE CO., Inc., and others, Respondents.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

276 N.Y. 628

12 N.E.2d 610

Hilda GREENBERG, Appellant,

v.MODERNAGE FURNITURE CO., Inc., and others, Respondents.

Court of Appeals of New York.

Jan. 4, 1938.

Action by Hilda Greenberg against the Modernage Furniture Company, Inc., and others. The defendant Martin H. Feinman, Inc., owned and operated a furniture establishment. The defendant Modernage Furniture Company, Inc. was the owner of the trade-name ‘Modernage.’ The defendant Martin H. Feinman owned all of the stock of the Modernage Furniture Company, Inc., and two-thirds of the stock of Martin H. Feinman, Inc. In April, 1934, the defendant Modernage Furniture Company, Inc. and Martin H. Feinman, Inc. made a bulk sale of their assets to the defendant M. H. F. Company, Inc. That company changed its name to the Modernage Furniture Corporation after the bulk sale was consummated. The plaintiff, as an assignee of a claim for goods sold and delivered prior to the bulk sale, recovered judgment against the Modernage Furniture Company, Inc. prior to the bulk sale. The trial court found that the bulk sale was not acquiesced in by the plaintiff or her assignors, and that the plaintiff was not represented on the creditors' committee.

Subsequent to the consummation of the bulk sale the plaintiff instituted the action to set the sale aside on the ground that the transfer was not actually a bulk sale within section 44 of the Personal Property Law, Consol.Laws, c. 41, and on the further ground that the consideration for the transfer was inadequate, rendering the transfer invalid pursuant to section 15 of the Stock Corporation Law, Consol.Laws, c. 59.

From a judgment of the Appellate Division, 249 App.Div. 808, 294 N.Y.S. 494, which affirmed the judgment dismissing the complaint, plaintiff appeals by leave of the Court of Appeals after plaintiff's motion for leave to appeal was denied by the Appellate Division, 250 App.Div. 758, 295 N.Y.S. 761.

Affirmed.

Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

Isadore Siegel, of Brooklyn (Samuel J. Sussman, of Brooklyn, of counsel), for appellant.

Hyman & Hyman, of New York City (Sol A. Hyman, of New York City, of counsel), for respondents.

PER CURIAM.

Judgment affirmed with costs.