Independence Discount Corp. v. Bressner

Decision Date10 March 1975
Citation365 N.Y.S.2d 44,47 A.D.2d 756
Parties, 16 UCC Rep.Serv. 845 INDEPENDENCE DISCOUNT CORP., Respondent, v. Joseph BRESSNER et al., Appellants.
CourtNew York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Gainsburg, Gottlieb, Levitan & Cole, New York City (Eugene H. Feldman and Alan C. Krieger, New York City, of counsel), for appellants.

Frank, Frank & Berger, New York City (Arnold V. Goldstein, New York City, of counsel), for respondent.

Before COHALAN, Acting P.J., and CHRIST, BRENNAN, MUNDER and SHAPIRO, JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.

In an action, Inter alia, to recover for conversion of the proceeds of the sale of secured merchandise, defendants appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, entered January 31, 1974, in favor of plaintiff after a nonjury trial.

Judgment reversed, on the law, with costs, and complaint dismissed.

Plaintiff financed the purchase of certain appliances by Bressner Colorvision Corp. In return, Colorvision granted a security interest to plaintiff in all its future inventory of Philco-Ford household appliances and in all proceeds of the sale or other distribution thereof. The inventory financing and security agreement provided that Colorvision had the right, in the regular course of its business, to sell the appliances covered by the security agreement, and obligated Colorvision to pay 'all amounts due (plaintiff) with respect to the Products financed hereunder * * * immediately upon the sale or other disposition of such Products'. The agreement was silent as to whether Colorvision could commingle sale proceeds with its own funds. The effect of these provisions was that where an appliance was sold in the regular course of business the purchaser took free of plaintiff's security interest, but plaintiff obtained a perfected security interest in the proceeds (Uniform Commercial Code, § 9--306).

The inventory was sold and the proceeds were commingled with the general corporate funds of Colorvision. Thereafter Colorvision went into bankruptcy. It appears uncontroverted that the balance in the corporate bank accounts has always been greater than the outstanding debt owed to plaintiff. Since plaintiff's security interest in the proceeds commingled in those accounts is limited by subdivision (4) of section 9--306 of the Uniform Commercial Code, the security interest has apparently been effectually extinguished and plaintiff, as a general creditor of Colorvision, will receive less than 100 cents on the dollar in payment of the debt. Accordingly, plaintiff instituted this action against the two principal officers and majority stockholders of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
101 cases
  • In re Express Scripts, Inc., Pbm Litigation
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri
    • 31 d3 Outubro d3 2007
    ...A.D.2d at 242-43, 436 N.Y.S.2d 496 (citing AMF Inc., 48 A.D.2d at 356-57, 369 N.Y.S.2d 460 and Independence Discount Corp. v. Bressner, 47 A.D.2d 756, 757, 365 N.Y.S.2d 44 (N.Y.App.Div.1975)). In turning to Defendants' first argument, the Court agrees that "`a simple breach of contract is n......
  • Kubin v. Miller, 92 Civ. 0756 (SWK).
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • 31 d5 Julho d5 1992
    ...created an entitlement to shares of CMI. Complaint, at ¶¶ 13, 21. Defendants' reliance upon Independence Discount Corp. v. Bressner, 47 A.D.2d 756, 757, 365 N.Y.S.2d 44, 46 (2d Dept. 1975), for the proposition that a conversion claim does not lie for the withholding of indefinite, intangibl......
  • LaMonica v. CEVA Grp. PLC (In re CIL Ltd.)
    • United States
    • U.S. Bankruptcy Court — Southern District of New York
    • 5 d5 Janeiro d5 2018
    ...thing in question, to the alteration of its condition or to the exclusion of the plaintiff's rights." Indep.Discount Corp. v. Bressner , 47 A.D.2d 756, 365 N.Y.S.2d 44, 46 (2d Dep't 1975) (citation omitted). The Trustee does not contend that CEVA Group and CEVA Holdings are in possession of......
  • Csi Grp., LLP v. Harper
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • 20 d3 Setembro d3 2017
    ...762 N.Y.S.2d 402 ). In other words, " [t]angible personal property or specific money must be involved" ( Independence Discount Corp. v. Bressner, 47 A.D.2d 756, 757, 365 N.Y.S.2d 44 [emphasis omitted]; see AMF Inc. v. Algo Distrib., Ltd., 48 A.D.2d 352, 356–357, 369 N.Y.S.2d 460 ). The appe......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT