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

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided April 30, 1964·Published·Cited by 4 cases

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.

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

20 A.D.2d 891 (Beirne v. Habel) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related