State Tax Commission v. Shor

371 N.E.2d 523, 400 N.Y.S.2d 805, 43 N.Y.2d 151 (1977)

From our private database of 46,300+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

State Tax Commission v. Shor

New York Court of Appeals
371 N.E.2d 523, 400 N.Y.S.2d 805, 43 N.Y.2d 151 (1977)

LJ

Facts

Bernard Shor (defendant) held 1,400 shares of stock and a proprietary leasehold interest in his cooperative apartment located on Park Avenue in New York City. A cooperative corporation owned the land and the building, and the tenants within the cooperative owned shares of stock instead of a deed. Shor’s proprietary lease agreement provided the lessor, 480 Park Avenue Corporation (Park Avenue) (plaintiff), with a priority lien on Shor’s shares of stock and his monetary obligations arising under the proprietary lease. In 1967 Shor granted Chase Manhattan Bank (Chase) (plaintiff) a security interest and a general lien on all of Shor’s personal-property interests, and Chase held Shor’s stock certificates and proprietary lease as collateral. On February 6, 1970, Fidelity National Bank (Fidelity) (defendant) obtained and docketed a $152,589 judgment against Shor; however, Fidelity never executed the lien on Shor’s property. Ultimately, $40,000 of Fidelity’s judgment was recovered. In April 1972, Chase obtained a judgment against Shor for approximately $44,223. In 1973 Shor was evicted from the cooperative apartment because of his failure to pay maintenance charges under the proprietary lease. Park Avenue claimed a first lien of approximately $63,908. Chase also asserted a first lien of approximately $67,800, plus attorney’s fees. In April 1971, the State Tax Commission (the tax commission) (plaintiff) had filed a tax warrant against Shor. Upon the sale of the apartment, Park Avenue, Chase, and the tax commission authorized the sale of the collateral, and the sale realized $141,000. Fidelity filed an interpleader as a defendant and asserted that Shor’s interest in the cooperative apartment was chattel real and therefore should be treated as real property with regard to determining lien-priority status. Accordingly, Fidelity contended that its 1970 action provided it with priority over the other three creditors. The court entered a money-judgment order in favor of Park Avenue, Chase, and the tax commission, and Fidelity filed an appeal.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Breitel, C.J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 811,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 811,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 811,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,300 briefs - keyed to 988 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership