In re the Assignment of Bieber
Opinion of the Court
Every question which is presented upon this motion was determined by the order made upon the former motion which was affirmed in this court. Do leave to renew the motion was asked, and the Earned justice below might well have denied this application for the reason that it was substantially a renewal of a former motion without leave, even under the liberal rule laid down in Riggs v. Pursell (74 N. Y. 370). .It is claimed, however, by the appellant that a new element has been brought into the case, because of the judgment in this court in the action brought by the trustee in bankruptcy against Liebermann to recover for the alleged waste
Nor is the judgment rendered in the action brought by the trustee in bankruptcy an estoppel against the creditor in this proceeding. He was no party to it, nor did the trustee in bankruptcy represent him, so far as the proceedings under the assignment for the benefit of creditors were concerned. In no aspect of the case did this judgment have any effect upon the rights of the parties.
The order made upon this proceeding, therefore, should be affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements against Liebermann, to be charged against him personally.
Yaw Brunt, P. J., Patterson, O’Brien and Ingraham, JJ., concurred.
Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements against the appellant Liebermann personally.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.