N.Y. Laws » CHAPTER General Obligations / ARTICLE Transfer of Obligations and Rights / TITLE Transferability; Effect of Transfer
New York Consolidated Laws

N.Y. General Obligations Law § 13-101 (2026)

Transfer of claims

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NY-LEGnysenate.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar 
§ 13-101. Transfer of claims. Any claim or demand can be transferred,
except in one of the following cases:
  1. Where it is to recover damages for a personal injury;
  2. Where it is founded upon a grant, which is made void by a statute
of the state; or upon a claim to or interest in real property, a grant
of which, by the transferrer, would be void by such a statute;
  3. Where a transfer thereof is expressly forbidden by: (a) a statute
of the state, or (b) a statute of the United States, or (c) would
contravene public policy.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 37 cases, 1973–2020 · leading case: Gen. Elec. Capital Corp. v. New York State Div. of Tax Appeals, 810 N.E.2d 864 (N.Y. 2004).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Gen. Elec. Capital Corp. v. New York State Div. of Tax Appeals, 810 N.E.2d 864 (N.Y. 2004). · cites it 13× “Petitioner also maintains that the regulation violates the broad assignment provisions in General Obligations Law § 13-101, which states that “[a]ny claim or demand can be transferred” except in certain enumerated circumstances not relevant here, or when such a transfer is…”
Greevy v. Becker, Isserlis, Sullivan & Kurtz, 240 A.D.2d 539 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997). · cites it 3× “), dated May 30, 1996, as denied those branches of their cross motion which were to dismiss the causes of action in the complaint sounding in legal malpractice as barred by General Obligations Law § 13-101. Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.”
Med. Soc'y v. Serio, 800 N.E.2d 728 (N.Y. 2003). “Nevertheless, petitioners argue that this restriction violates General Obligations Law § 13-101, which provides that “[a]ny claim or demand can be transferred” unless such transfer is expressly forbidden by statute or “contravene [s] public policy.”
Gen. Elec. Capital Corp. v. New York State Div. of Tax Appeals, 301 A.D.2d 819 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003). · cites it 5× “7 (b) (3) to be a reasonable interpretation of Tax Law § 1132 (e), that both Tax Law § 1132 (e) and the regulation promulgated pursuant thereto superseded the general rules of assignment contained in General Obligations Law § 13-101 and that the regulation did not violate public…”
Alan B. Miller, Tr. in Bankr. of Am. Ibc Corp., Bankrupt v. Wells Fargo Bank Int'l Corp., 540 F.2d 548 (2d Cir. 1976). “at 472 ; see N.Y. General Obligations Law § 13-101 (McKinney 1964); Myers v.”
Bluebird Partners, L.P. v. First Fid. Bank, N.A., 767 N.E.2d 672 (N.Y. 2002). “First, they assert that General Obligations Law § 13-101 directs that General Obligations Law § 13-107 be interpreted to conform to the Trust Indenture Act, and thereby reflect the federal “public policy” of having the claims remain with the bond seller.”
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Pub. Sch. Employees' Ret. Sys. v. Morgan Stanley & Co., 35 N.E.3d 481 (N.Y. 2015). “To be sure, fraud claims are freely assignable in New York (see Banque Arabe, 57 F3d at 151-153; Glen Banks, New York Contract Law § 15:4 [28 West’s NY Prac Series]; see also General Obligations Law § 13-101). It has long been held, however, that the right to assert a fraud…”
In Re Minor, 443 B.R. 282 (Bankr. W.D.N.Y. 2011). · cites it 2× “Both at common law and pursuant to General Obligations Law § 13-101, an injured party may not assign a claim or demand to recover damages resulting from a personal injury.”
Jones Lang Wootton USA v. LeBoeuf, Lamb, Greene & MacRae, 243 A.D.2d 168 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998). “2 million, assigning to the carrier any claim it might have against LeBoeuf for legal malpractice (see, General Obligations Law § 13-101). It was agreed that Old Republic would select counsel for the action against LeBoeuf and would retain complete control over the litigation.”
Oppel v. Empire Mut. Ins., 517 F. Supp. 1305 (S.D.N.Y. 1981). “§ 1359 ; (3) that the second cause of action, which seeks punitive damages, is a tort action and hence unassigna-ble under N.Y.General Obligations Law § 13-101; and (4) that the malpractice action is a tort action and hence unassignable under § 13-101.”
Samaroo v. Patmos Fifth Real Est., Inc., 102 A.D.3d 944 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013). “, 96 AD2d 555, 556 [1983]; see also General Obligations Law § 13-101). Moreover, Patmos met its prima facie burden of demonstrating its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on its third-party cause of action against Rotavele for contractual indemnification by establishing…”
Bulan v. Pre-Settlement Fin., LLC (In re Minor), 482 B.R. 80 (Bankr. W.D.N.Y. 2012). · cites it 2× “First, in order to avoid a violation of General Obligations Law § 13-101, PSF took not an assignment of any cause of action, but only an assignment of proceeds.”
Show all 37 citing cases →
N.Y. General Obligations Law § 13-101(1): 1 case
Mccormack v. Bloomfield S.S. Co., 399 F. Supp. 488 (S.D.N.Y. 1974).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.