73 Misc. 2d 128 - Central State Bank v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 federal appellate · 6 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““The circumstances presented here do not give rise to an issue of priority of liens. This is not a situation where two creditors with perfected interests are competing to subordinate the other’s right to attach proceeds belonging to and held by the debtor. [Citation omitted.] Neither do the facts disclose an effort by the State to attach proceeds in the hands of a third party. Rather, the State holds the fund against which it desires to debit a sum the assignor concededly owes the State. “The State, as an ’account debtor,’ may lawfully assert in this proceeding any claim or defense it has against the assignor which accrued before it received notice of the assignment. [U.C.C. § 9-318(l)(b).] The rights acquired by claimant pursuant to its assignment are no greater than those of its assignor. [Citation omitted.] “Since the State’s claim arose when the taxes became due it would be patently unfair to require the State, in order to perfect its claim against a fund it now holds, to first file a warrant. Therefore, for the purposes of ascertaining the amount of the setoff, the period in which these taxes became due will control. “In view of the fact the right to taxes accrued before the State had notice of the assignment and the aggregate amount of these taxes is greater than the proceeds upon which claimant seeks judgment, claimant’s motion for summary judgment must be denied.” 73 Misc. 2d at 129-30 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Bank of Kansas v. Hutchinson Health Services, Inc.