Case Name: In re GARMENT CENTER CAPITOL, Inc.
Court: United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1935-05-06
Citations: 13 F. Supp. 908
Docket Number: 
Parties: In re GARMENT CENTER CAPITOL, Inc.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Supplement
Volume: 13
Pages: 908–908

Head Matter:
In re GARMENT CENTER CAPITOL, Inc.
District Court, S. D. New York.
May 6, 1935.
Schiff, Dorfman & Stein, of New York City, for petitioner Alice E. Cohen.
O’Connor & Farber, of New York City, for temporary trustees.
Lind, Shlivek, Marks & Brin, of New York City, for David H. Orgel.
Greenbaum, Wolff & Ernst, of New York City, for debenture holders’ committee.
Cravath, deGersdorff, Swaine & Wood and William Klein, all of New York City, for debtors.
Paskus, Gordon & Hyman, of New York City, for Harold W. Bonwit.
Carl J. Austrian, of New York City, for Bank of United States.
David K. Shappiro, of New York City, for petitioning creditors.-
Hutner & Hutner, of New York City, for creditors Jablow & Fox.
Isaac N. Jacobson, of New York City, for debenture holder Baer.
Pollock & Nemerov, of New York City, for other debenture holders.

Opinion:
CAFFEY, District Judge.
No facts are furnished to sustain an application to intervene.
The petitioner, without intervention, is entitled to notice of hearing on any proposed plan of reorganization. The statute so provides. So far as concerns the facts disclosed,' the petitioner needs nothing but an opportunity to be heard on such a plan.
It is merely obstructive and merely increases the expense of administering the estate, and hence is adverse to the interests of all creditors (including the petitioner), to multiply the number of interveners.
The court will gladly hear any person interested. Nevertheless, the procedure to assure hearing of everybody should be orderly. Moreover, the expense should be held to such minimum as is reasonably practicable and is consistent with fair opportunity to all. Because of the absence of affirmative showing of good ground for adding the petitioner as a formal party in this proceeding, and thereby hampering the prompt disposition of routine matters, the application is denied.
Settle order on two days' notice.