Legal Opinion
Martin Fein & Co. v. Sealomatic Electronics Corp.
Civil Court of the City of New York
Decided December 11, 1967PublishedCited by 2 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtArnold L. Fein, J.
Plaintiff moves to dismiss four defenses interposed by defendants.
The first complete defense, namely, that plaintiff is not the real party in interest, and the .second, that this court has no jurisdiction of the action, are sufficient and require dismissal of the action.
Plaintiff alleges that it is a licensed auctioneer who was engaged by the Small Business Administration, an agency of the United States Government, to sell certain assets of Tronomatic 'Oorp. pursuant to a security agreement. Those assets were sold at auction to defendants on June 1,1967. Defendants did not pay for the goods…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- National Electronic Laboratories, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1960
- Blake Construction Company, Inc. v. United States of America, United States of America v. Aetna Casualty and Surety CompanyCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1961
- In re the Arbitration between Eimco Corp. & Deering, Milliken & Co.New York Supreme Court · 1957
- Carvel Farms Corp. v. BartomeoNew York Supreme Court · 1965
- Ruth v. Graceform-Camlin Corset Co.City of New York Municipal Court · 1956
3Cited by2 opinions
- Dolph Clothiers, Inc. v. Salomon (In re Martin Fein & Co.)District Court, S.D. New York · 1983
- Bankers Trust Co. of California, N. A. v. TooleyAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1997