1074372 Ontario, Inc. v. 200 Corbin Owners Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

1074372 Ontario, Inc. v. 200 Corbin Owners Corp.

290 A.D.2d 497, 736 N.Y.S.2d 273, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 505

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJanuary 22, 2002

StatusPublished

This text of 290 A.D.2d 497 (1074372 Ontario, Inc. v. 200 Corbin Owners Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

1074372 Ontario, Inc. v. 200 Corbin Owners Corp., 290 A.D.2d 497, 736 N.Y.S.2d 273, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 505 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendants 200 Corbin Owners Corp. and Board of Managers of 200 Owner’s Corp. appeal from so much of an amended order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (M. Garson, J.), dated October 12, 2000, as, in effect, denied their application for an interim distribution of funds from the receiver’s account.

Ordered that on the Court’s own motion, the notice of appeal is treated as an application for leave to appeal, and leave to appeal is granted (see, CPLR 5701 [c]); and it is further,

Ordered that the amended order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

[498]*498Contrary to the appellants’ contentions, the record is devoid of any evidence that the receiver appointed to serve in this foreclosure action was discharged. Therefore, as a fiduciary and officer of the court, the receiver remains obligated to act in accordance with the terms of the order appointing him receiver (see, Coronet Capital Co. v Spodek, 279 AD2d 600, 602). Moreover, the Supreme Court properly denied the appellants’ application for an interim distribution of the funds in the receiver’s account (see, RPAPL 1325; 1 Bergman, New York Mortgage Foreclosures § 10.23 [1]; CFSC Capital Corp. XXVII v Bachman Mech. Sheet Metal Co., 177 Misc 2d 652). Luciano, J.P., Townes, Crane and Prudenti, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendants 200 Corbin Owners Corp. and Board of Managers of 200 Owner’s Corp. appeal from so much of an amended order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (M. Garson, J.), dated October 12, 2000, as, in effect, denied their application for an interim distribution of funds from the receiver’s account.

Ordered that on the Court’s own motion, the notice of appeal is treated as an application for leave to appeal, and leave to appeal is granted (see, CPLR 5701 [c]); and it is further,

Ordered that the amended order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

[498]*498Contrary to the appellants’ contentions, the record is devoid of any evidence that the receiver appointed to serve in this foreclosure action was discharged. Therefore, as a fiduciary and officer of the court, the receiver remains obligated to act in accordance with the terms of the order appointing him receiver (see, Coronet Capital Co. v Spodek, 279 AD2d 600, 602). Moreover, the Supreme Court properly denied the appellants’ application for an interim distribution of the funds in the receiver’s account (see, RPAPL 1325; 1 Bergman, New York Mortgage Foreclosures § 10.23 [1]; CFSC Capital Corp. XXVII v Bachman Mech. Sheet Metal Co., 177 Misc 2d 652). Luciano, J.P., Townes, Crane and Prudenti, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

290 A.D.2d 497, 736 N.Y.S.2d 273, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 505, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/1074372-ontario-inc-v-200-corbin-owners-corp-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack