Case Name: Ben Bimberg & Co., Inc., and Others, Plaintiffs, v. Unity Coat & Apron Co., Inc., Defendant
Court: New York Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1933-05-03
Citations: 151 Misc. 442
Docket Number: 
Parties: Ben Bimberg & Co., Inc., and Others, Plaintiffs, v. Unity Coat & Apron Co., Inc., Defendant.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Miscellaneous Reports
Volume: 151
Pages: 442–442

Head Matter:
Ben Bimberg & Co., Inc., and Others, Plaintiffs, v. Unity Coat & Apron Co., Inc., Defendant.
Supreme Court, New York County,
May 3, 1933.
Murray A. Myerson, for the plaintiffs.
Moos, Nathan, Imbrey & Levine, for the defendant.
Affd., 240 App. Div. 959. See, also, 150 Misc. 836; 151 id. 442.

Opinion:
Schmuck, J.
Motion denied. Section 476 of the Civil Practice Act and rule 112 of the Rules of Civil Practice can avail the defendant naught. The complaint states facts establishing a violation of section 44 of the Personal Property Law. Alleging that a sale was made of fixtures, machinery, merchandise, delivery trucks and established good will, it predicates a sale in bulk within the meaning of section 44 of the Personal Property Law. Regardless of the interpretation and definition of what constitutes a sale in bulk by foreign jurisdictions, and considering the rule laid down by the appellate courts in this State, it would seem that the complaint alleging a sale in bulk of an entire business together with the fixtures, machinery and good will shows a sale within section 44. (Mott v. Reeves, 125 Misc. 511.)