2014 Judge Gambardella - Opinions

Judge Rosemary Gambardella -- Opinions signed in 2014

Blackpool Investors Group, Ltd., Case No. 12-24599, 4/4/2014

The issue before the Court was whether the holder of a tax sale certificate has a “tax claim” under §511(a) such that the holder is entitled to the interest rate prescribed by N.J.S.A. § 54:4-67(a) on that claim.  The Court first found that the municipality’s tax claim is not extinguished upon the sale of the certificate.  The Court further found that the debt underlying the tax certificate holder’s claim is based on the municipal tax, not a statutory obligation to repay the tax sale certificate holder.  Therefore, the Court denied the debtor’s motion to set post-petition interest rate.



New York City Housing Authority v. G-I Holdings, Inc., Case No. 12-1903, 8/12/2014

The issues before the Court are: 1) whether the request by the New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA)  for an affirmative mandatory injunction ordering the consolidated debtor to prevent asbestos releases during future remediation efforts is barred by the confirmation of the consolidated debtor's plan of reorganization; and 2) whether NYCHA's claims for past and future relief are nondischargeable.  First, the Court found that NYCHA's request for injunctive relief was an "asbestos property damage claim" as defined in the confirmed plan of reorganization, and therefore that NYCHA's claim was entitled only to the treatment prescribed in the plan for that class of claims.  The Court determined that NYCHA's right to seek equitable remedies for asbestos property damage under any legal theory was extinguished by the plan and the confirmation order.  Next, the Court found that NYCHA's request for injunctive relief was a "claim" under the Bankruptcy Code and thus dischargeable under the consolidated debtor's confirmed plan.  The Court further found that NYCHA had presented no compelling reason to allow post-confirmation amendment of its proof of claim.




Circle 10 Restaurant, LLC, Case No. 13-14820, 11/7/2014

The issue before the Court is whether Relm LCC’s lien against Debtor’s property attaches to the sale proceeds of a liquor license.  This Court finds that the right to the proceeds from the sale of a liquor license is governed by N.J.S.A. § 33:1–26 where the proceeds are not property subject to lien or attachment.  
The relevant question is whether the liquor license is a “general intangible” subject to N.J.S.A. § 12A:9–408(c) such that N.J.S.A. § 33:1–26’s impairment on the creation of a security interest in the liquor license would be ineffective under Revised Article 9.  Under New Jersey law, the liquor license must first be found to be “personal property” for it to be a general intangible.   N.J.S.A. § 33:1–26 establishes unequivocally that the liquor license and the rights thereunder are not “property” and thus not “personal property” that can be subject to a security interest.  Therefore, this Court holds that under New Jersey's current statutory scheme, a private creditor cannot obtain a security interest in any right associated with a liquor license, including the proceeds of its sale. 










Return to list of Court Hosted Opinions