From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Taran Furs, Inc. v. Champagne Bridals, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Jan 24, 1986
116 A.D.2d 970 (N.Y. App. Div. 1986)

Opinion

January 24, 1986

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Monroe County, Davis, J.

Present — Dillon, P.J., Doerr, Boomer, Green and Pine, JJ.


Order unanimously affirmed, with costs. Memorandum: Plaintiff sold fur coats valued at $53,325 to the defendants. Plaintiff alleges defendants represented at the time of sale that the coats were being purchased by Coles of Newark, Inc. (Coles), when in fact the merchandise was being supplied to defendant Champagne Bridals, Inc. (Champagne). Although defendants Mr. and Mrs. Nusbaum own and control both Coles and Champagne, they acknowledge that Coles is a corporation separate and distinct from Champagne. Coles filed for bankruptcy shortly after the sale of the fur coats. Plaintiff sued Champagne and the Nusbaums alleging causes of action for breach of contract, misrepresentation and related claims. Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the United States Bankruptcy Court has exclusive jurisdiction over plaintiff's lawsuit (CPLR 3211 [a] [2], [4], [5]) and that Coles is a necessary party (CPLR 3211 [a] [10]). Special Term properly rejected these arguments and denied defendants' motion to dismiss.

Only actions against the debtor and the property of the debtor's estate are automatically stayed upon the filing of a petition in bankruptcy ( 11 U.S.C. § 362 [a]). Plaintiff's action is not against Coles but against Champagne. Actions against parties other than the debtor in bankruptcy are not stayed (In re Larmar Estates, 5 B.R. 328, 330 [EDNY 1980]).

Special Term also properly rejected defendant's claim that this action could not proceed without joinder of Coles as a necessary party. Plaintiff has made no allegations against Coles. At most, Coles may be a joint tort-feasor or coobligor of the sales contract, but would not be a necessary party in either event (see, Sarubbi v Rinaldo, 98 A.D.2d 837; Littanzi v State of New York, 54 A.D.2d 1043, 1044; cf. Lottes v Slater, 114 A.D.2d 580).

We have considered defendants' remaining claims and find them lacking in merit.


Summaries of

Taran Furs, Inc. v. Champagne Bridals, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Jan 24, 1986
116 A.D.2d 970 (N.Y. App. Div. 1986)
Case details for

Taran Furs, Inc. v. Champagne Bridals, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:TARAN FURS, INC., Respondent, v. CHAMPAGNE BRIDALS, INC., et al.…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department

Date published: Jan 24, 1986

Citations

116 A.D.2d 970 (N.Y. App. Div. 1986)

Citing Cases

Wehle v. Moroczko

We further conclude that the court properly denied the cross motion. Although Alfreda executed the note, her…

Wehle v. Moroczko

We further conclude that the court properly denied the cross motion. Although Alfreda executed the note, her…