Alexander v. A. R. Z. Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Alexander v. A. R. Z. Corp.

283 A.D. 656, 127 N.Y.S.2d 349, 1954 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4792

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

DecidedJanuary 26, 1954

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 283 A.D. 656 (Alexander v. A. R. Z. 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

Alexander v. A. R. Z. Corp., 283 A.D. 656, 127 N.Y.S.2d 349, 1954 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4792 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1954).

Pincite

Opinion

The appointment of a receiver of the defendant corporation was neither necessary nor provident. The assurance given by counsel for defendant Rothman in open court that Rothman has no intention of foreclosing the mortgage and would not do so pending the trial of this action removes any fear of loss of the corporation’s property pending a determination of the merits of the controversy between the parties. The interest of the parties can best be served and protected by an early trial of the action, which can readily be arranged at Special Term. Order unanimously reversed, with one bill of $20 costs and disbursements to the appellants, and the motion denied upon condition that the defendant Rothman [657]*657file with the court his personal undertaking to take no action toward foreclosing the mortgage pending a trial of the action set down by Special Term. Settle order on notice. Present — Peck, P. J., Callahan, Bastow, Botein and Bergan, JJ.

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

The appointment of a receiver of the defendant corporation was neither necessary nor provident. The assurance given by counsel for defendant Rothman in open court that Rothman has no intention of foreclosing the mortgage and would not do so pending the trial of this action removes any fear of loss of the corporation’s property pending a determination of the merits of the controversy between the parties. The interest of the parties can best be served and protected by an early trial of the action, which can readily be arranged at Special Term. Order unanimously reversed, with one bill of $20 costs and disbursements to the appellants, and the motion denied upon condition that the defendant Rothman [657]*657file with the court his personal undertaking to take no action toward foreclosing the mortgage pending a trial of the action set down by Special Term. Settle order on notice. Present — Peck, P. J., Callahan, Bastow, Botein and Bergan, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

283 A.D. 656, 127 N.Y.S.2d 349, 1954 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4792, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/alexander-v-a-r-z-corp-nyappdiv-1954.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack