Case Name: Mateo Palmer, Appellant, v. Morris S. Tremaine, State Comptroller, Atlas Advertising Agency, Inc., and Others, Defendants. Atlas Advertising Agency, Inc., Respondent
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1940-05-22
Citations: 259 A.D. 951
Docket Number: 
Parties: Mateo Palmer, Appellant, v. Morris S. Tremaine, State Comptroller, Atlas Advertising Agency, Inc., and Others, Defendants. Atlas Advertising Agency, Inc., Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 259
Pages: 951–951

Head Matter:
Mateo Palmer, Appellant, v. Morris S. Tremaine, State Comptroller, Atlas Advertising Agency, Inc., and Others, Defendants. Atlas Advertising Agency, Inc., Respondent.

Opinion:
This is an appeal by plaintiff-appellant from an order of the Special Term of the Supreme Court, Albany county, granting the motion of defendant Atlas Advertising Agency, Inc., dismissing the amended complaint and granting affirmative relief in favor of said defendant. Plaintiff-appellant brought this action to have determined his claim to a refund of moneys in the hands of the Comptroller, which resulted from the surrender of a liquor license by virtue of an assignment to appellant from the licensee. The defendants are judgment creditors of the licensee and the receiver in supplementary proceedings under such judgments. The justice presiding at the Special Term held that an equitable assignment of moneys due from the liquor license refund executed before the fund came into existence is subordinate to the lien of creditors serving third-party subpoenas upon the Comptroller after the surrender of the license and the creation of the fund. (Zartman v. First National Bank, 189 N. Y. 267; Titusville Iron Co. v. City of New York, 207 id. 203; Alchar Realty Corp. v. Meredith Restaurant, Inc., 256 App. Div. 853; Schaefer Brewing Co. v. Amsterdam Tavern, Inc., 171 Misc. 352.) Until the receipt provided by section 127 of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Law is issued to the surrendering licensee and delivered to the Comptroller, no indebtedness exists from the Comptroller to the licensee and there is no existing fund susceptible of attachment or assignment. (See, also, Brearton v. Morgan, 257 App. Div. 34.) The order appealed from should be affirmed. Order unanimously affirmed, with ten dollars costs. Present — Hill, P. J., Crapser, Bliss, Heffernan and Sehenek, JJ.