Harold Moorstein & Co., Inc. v. Excelsior Ins. Co. of Syracuse
Cases that cite this one
5 later published cases cite this decision.
- PPG Industries, Inc. v. Hartford Fire Insurance Co. (District Court, S.D. New York 1974)
- MacOndo's Profit Corp. v. Motorola Communications & Electronics, Inc. (District Court, S.D. New York 1994)
- MDC Leasing Corp. v. New York Property Insurance Underwriting Ass'n (District Court, S.D. New York 1978)
- United States v. Colby Academy (District Court, E.D. New York 1981)
- Ppg Industries, Inc. v. The Hartford Fire Insurance Company, and United States of America (2d Cir. 1976)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed. The affidavits submitted on the motion for summary judgment were unanimous as to the intent of the parties to the assignment. Hence, there was no issue of fact to be determined and summary judgment was proper. However, we note that the dictum in the opinion below, interpreting Stathos v. Murphy (26 A D 2d 500, affd. 19 N Y 2d 883) to give the assignee of proceeds of a claim priority over attaching lienors, is clearly incorrect. As was pointed out in the opinion in Stathos (at pp. 503-504), the assignment of after-acquired proceeds of a claim is generally considered an assignment only of a future right and, therefore, the assignment does not give the assignee priority over lienors who have attached before the proceeds have come into existence.
Chief Judge Fuld and Judges Burke, Soileppi, Bergan, Breitel, Jasen and Gibson concur.
Order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.