In American Metal Finishers v. Palleschi (55 AD2d 499 [2d Dept 1977]), Harry Palleschi was a landlord who brought a summary proceeding against his tenant, Crown-Bastell, Inc. The tenant defaulted and Palleschi recovered a warrant of eviction and a money judgment. Before the Sheriff could levy upon the judgment, the tenant, Crown-Bastell, transferred all its assets to American Metal Finishers in exchange for American Metal Finishers' assumption of a loan obligation to Chase Manhattan Bank in the sum of $ 205,735.38, as well as the assumption of other obligations including past due wages, public utility debts and payroll taxes owed to the Internal Revenue Service. While the decision does not state whether Crown-Bastell's debt to Chase Manhattan secured by the perfected security was in default, "The nonpayment of payroll taxes had resulted in the placement by the Internal Revenue Service of a lien on Crown's property ... and in the padlocking of the warehouse and Crown's manufacturing facility." (Supra, at 500.) Palleschi challenged the transfer to American Metal Finishers citing the Bulk Transfers Act. "Palleschi argues that the 'transfer in settlement' herein was not of the kind contemplated by section 6-103 because it was not made to the secured party (the bank) but to a third party (American), and that the latter's arrangements with the bank (including the assumption of the indebtedness), which resulted in the bank's delivery of a release to the debtor, are irrelevant (citing as authority therefor Starman v. John Wolfe, Inc., 490 SW2d 377 [Mo, 1973]). "The chief rationale of the Bulk Transfers article is the avoidance of the 'major bulk sales risk' of '[t]he merchant, owing debts, who sells out his stock in trade ... pockets the proceeds, and disappears leaving his creditors unpaid' (Official Comment, McKinney's Cons Laws of NY, Book 62 1/2, Uniform Commercial Code, 6-101, p 717). But where the transfer is in settlement of a lien or security interest, there are not cash proceeds with which the seller could abscond. Thus, where the consideration is settlement of an indebtedness with no receipt of cash proceeds, the protective purposes of the Bulk Transfers article do not apply." ( American Metal Finishers v. Palleschi, supra, at 501.)