Minkoff v. Steven Jrs.

Decision Date03 November 1958
Docket NumberNo. 74,Docket 25139.,74
Citation260 F.2d 588
PartiesNathaniel M. MINKOFF, as Treasurer of Joint Board of Dress & Waistmakers' Union of Greater New York, Health & Welfare Fund of the Dress Industry, and Retirement Fund of the Dress Industry of New York, Petitioning Creditors-Appellants, v. STEVEN JRS., Inc., Alleged Bankrupt-Appellee.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit

Hyman Gold, New York City (Schlesinger & Bloom, New York City, on the brief), for petitioning creditors-appellants.

Benjamin Weintraub, New York City (Elias Mann, Ronald Levy and Levin & Weintraub, New York City, on the brief), for alleged bankrupt-appellee.

Before CLARK, Chief Judge, and MEDINA and LUMBARD, Circuit Judges.

LUMBARD, Circuit Judge.

This is an appeal from an order of the District Court for the Southern District of New York, Sugarman, J., reversing the denial by Referee Stephenson of a motion to dismiss an involuntary petition in bankruptcy for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. We hold that the referee correctly refused to grant the motion to dismiss, and accordingly we reverse the order of the district court, and remand for further proceedings.

The petition was filed on June 29, 1956, alleging as acts of bankruptcy within the preceding four months that the alleged bankrupt did

(1) with intent to hinder, delay and defraud various creditors, convey, transfer, conceal, remove, or permit to be concealed or removed, or set over unto said divers persons, whose names are unknown to your petitioners, valuable property, consisting of cash, furniture, fixtures, merchandise and inventory of the value of upwards of $10,000.
(2) while insolvent transfer property and various moneys amounting in the aggregate to the value or sum of more than $10,000 to various creditors with intent thereby to prefer such creditors over other creditors of the same class, the names of the creditors receiving such preference being unknown to your petitioners.

Despite the generality of these allegations, the alleged bankrupt filed its answer to the petition on July 23, 1956 generally denying the alleged acts of bankruptcy. The petition having been referred to Referee Stephenson for hearing and determination, on October 31, 1957, the alleged bankrupt moved that the petition be dismissed on the ground that it was legally insufficient and did not state facts sufficient to constitute an act of bankruptcy. After a hearing the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 cases
  • Town of East Haven v. Eastern Airlines, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Connecticut
    • January 31, 1968
    ...Trussell, 371 F.2d 672 (2 Cir. 1966). Vagueness or lack of detail is not sufficient ground for a motion to dismiss. Minkoff v. Stevens Jrs., Inc., 260 F.2d 588 (2 Cir. 1958); Dioguardi v. Durning, 139 F.2d 774 (2 Cir. 1944); 2 Moore's Federal Practice ¶ 12.08, at 2245-6 (2d ed. For all thes......
  • Abramson v. Boedeker
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit
    • August 15, 1967
    ...South Suburban Safeway Lines, Inc. v. Carcards, Inc., 2 Cir., 1958, 256 F.2d 934. This was echoed by him in Minkoff v. Steven Jrs., Inc., 2 Cir., 1958, 260 F.2d 588, 589-590, where the Court declared that "merely pleading in broad terms does not amount to failure to state a claim, especiall......
  • Harrison v. Enventure Capital Group, Inc., CIV-86-585E.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of New York
    • August 4, 1987
    ...state a claim, especially when as here the generality of the pleading arises from use of the statutory language." Minkoff v. Steven Jrs., 260 F.2d 588, 589-590 (2d Cir.1958). Former requirements of factual pleading have been eliminated by Fed.R.Civ.P. rule 8. The "modern philosophy" of plea......
  • In re Grand Eagle Companies, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. Bankruptcy Court — Northern District of Ohio
    • January 14, 2003
    ...a significantly shortened time frame in which to file the Amended Complaint. See footnote 18, supra. See also, Minkoff v. Steven Jrs., Inc., 260 F.2d 588, 589-90 (2nd Cir.1958) ("merely pleading in broad terms does not amount to failure to state a claim, especially when as here the generali......
  • 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