Beirne v. Habel

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Beirne v. Habel

20 A.D.2d 891, 248 N.Y.S.2d 939, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3906

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

DecidedApril 30, 1964

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 20 A.D.2d 891 (Beirne v. Habel) 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

Beirne v. Habel, 20 A.D.2d 891, 248 N.Y.S.2d 939, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3906 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, entered on February 14, 1964, unanimously affirmed, without costs. No opinion. Settle order on notice. Order, entered on February 27, 1964 denying a motion to vacate a prior order appointing a receiver, unanimously modified, on the law, on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, without costs, to the extent of terminating the receivership upon plaintiffs-appellants paying to the receiver the sum of $100 and his actual expenses, including the premium upon the bond, if such a premium was paid by the receiver. Special Term was fully justified in appointing the receiver, in view of the parties! suggestion and agreement in open court that such an appointment be made. The litigation, however, was settled and discontinued within a week after the entry of the order of appointment; and it does not appear that the receiver entered into possession of the premises, received any of the funds in dispute or performed any services beyond those possibly involved in qualifying pursuant to the order of appointment. Settle order on notice. Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Yalente, Stevens and Eager, JJ.

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

Order, entered on February 14, 1964, unanimously affirmed, without costs. No opinion. Settle order on notice. Order, entered on February 27, 1964 denying a motion to vacate a prior order appointing a receiver, unanimously modified, on the law, on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, without costs, to the extent of terminating the receivership upon plaintiffs-appellants paying to the receiver the sum of $100 and his actual expenses, including the premium upon the bond, if such a premium was paid by the receiver. Special Term was fully justified in appointing the receiver, in view of the parties! suggestion and agreement in open court that such an appointment be made. The litigation, however, was settled and discontinued within a week after the entry of the order of appointment; and it does not appear that the receiver entered into possession of the premises, received any of the funds in dispute or performed any services beyond those possibly involved in qualifying pursuant to the order of appointment. Settle order on notice. Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Yalente, Stevens and Eager, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

20 A.D.2d 891, 248 N.Y.S.2d 939, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3906, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/beirne-v-habel-nyappdiv-1964.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack