Legal Opinion

Sternberg v. Rubenstein

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Decided October 31, 1951PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Per curiam

The ordinary course of trade and business of the bankrupt was the sale of shoes at retail. We think the sale of 1,294 pairs of shoes which represented at least one sixth of his stock on hand, in money value, constituted a sale “ in bulk ”, “ otherwise than in the ordinary course of trade and in the regular prosecution of said business ’ ’ within the language and intent of section 44 of the Personal Property Law. The definition of the words, “ in bulk ” in Feldstein v. Fusco (205 App. Div. 806) was adequate for the facts in that case but too narrow to be applied generally, or the intent and…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Irving Trust Co. v. RosenwasserDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1934
  2. Jubas v. SampsellCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1950
  3. Feldstein v. FuscoAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1923

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Sternberg v. RubensteinNew York Court of Appeals · 1953
  2. Davis v. Lawrence-Cedarhurst BankCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1953
  3. Davis v. Lawrence-Cedarhurst BankCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1953
  4. In re Arrow Home Appliances, Inc.District Court, E.D. New York · 1952

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API