366 Fourth Street Corp. v. FoxFire Enterprises, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

366 Fourth Street Corp. v. FoxFire Enterprises, Inc.

149 A.D.2d 692, 540 N.Y.S.2d 489, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5322

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

DecidedApril 24, 1989

StatusPublished

Cited by12 cases

This text of 149 A.D.2d 692 (366 Fourth Street Corp. v. FoxFire Enterprises, Inc.) 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

366 Fourth Street Corp. v. FoxFire Enterprises, Inc., 149 A.D.2d 692, 540 N.Y.S.2d 489, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5322 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to foreclose a mortgage and for the appointment of a receiver with regard to a certain parcel of real property, the defendant Foxfire Enterprises, Inc. appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Held, J.), dated April 6, 1987, which denied its application to vacate the receivership order and to discharge the receiver.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Under Real Property Law § 254 (10), where, as in this case, the parties to a mortgage agree that a receiver may be appointed in the event of default, the appointment of a receiver without notice and without regard to the adequacy of security is proper (see, Clinton Capital Corp. v One Tiffany Place Developers, 112 AD2d 911, 912; 500 W. 172nd St. Realty v Romax Props. Corp., 126 Misc 2d 268, 270). Although under appropriate circumstances, a court of equity may deny such application (see, Clinton Capital Corp. v One Tiffany Place Developers, supra; Mancuso v Kambourelis, 72 AD2d 636, 637), such an exercise of discretion is unwarranted upon this record.

We have reviewed the appellant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Thompson, J. P., Bracken, Kunzeman and Spatt, 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 and for the appointment of a receiver with regard to a certain parcel of real property, the defendant Foxfire Enterprises, Inc. appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Held, J.), dated April 6, 1987, which denied its application to vacate the receivership order and to discharge the receiver.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Under Real Property Law § 254 (10), where, as in this case, the parties to a mortgage agree that a receiver may be appointed in the event of default, the appointment of a receiver without notice and without regard to the adequacy of security is proper (see, Clinton Capital Corp. v One Tiffany Place Developers, 112 AD2d 911, 912; 500 W. 172nd St. Realty v Romax Props. Corp., 126 Misc 2d 268, 270). Although under appropriate circumstances, a court of equity may deny such application (see, Clinton Capital Corp. v One Tiffany Place Developers, supra; Mancuso v Kambourelis, 72 AD2d 636, 637), such an exercise of discretion is unwarranted upon this record.

We have reviewed the appellant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Thompson, J. P., Bracken, Kunzeman and Spatt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

149 A.D.2d 692, 540 N.Y.S.2d 489, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5322, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/366-fourth-street-corp-v-foxfire-enterprises-inc-nyappdiv-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack