Connolly v. Plaza Cards & Gifts

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Connolly v. Plaza Cards & Gifts

54 A.D.2d 553, 387 N.Y.S.2d 5, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13861

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

DecidedSeptember 20, 1976

StatusPublished

This text of 54 A.D.2d 553 (Connolly v. Plaza Cards & Gifts) 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

Connolly v. Plaza Cards & Gifts, 54 A.D.2d 553, 387 N.Y.S.2d 5, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13861 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action by a duly appointed receiver in a mortgage foreclosure proceeding inter alia to have certain rents paid to him, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County, entered December 15, 1975, which (1) denied his motion for summary judgment and (2) granted the cross motion of respondent Dickerson & Meany, Inc., for summary judgment, and dismissed the complaint. Order reversed, on the law, with $50 costs and disbursements against respondent, Dickerson & Meany, Inc.; motion for summary judgment granted and cross [554]*554motion denied. No fact questions were presented for review. Plaintiff, as the duly appointed receiver of rents in a mortgage foreclosure proceeding, who was appointed and qualified before respondent judgment creditor sought to levy on the rents by attachment, has priority over the judgment creditor (see New York Life Ins. Co. v Fulton Development Corp., 265 NY 348; People’s Trust Co. v Goodell, 134 Mise 692; Marks, Maloney and Paperno, Mortgages and Mortgage Foreclosure in New York [Rev ed], § 231). Martuscello, Acting P. J., Latham, Margett, Rabin and Hawkins, JJ., concur.

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

In an action by a duly appointed receiver in a mortgage foreclosure proceeding inter alia to have certain rents paid to him, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County, entered December 15, 1975, which (1) denied his motion for summary judgment and (2) granted the cross motion of respondent Dickerson & Meany, Inc., for summary judgment, and dismissed the complaint. Order reversed, on the law, with $50 costs and disbursements against respondent, Dickerson & Meany, Inc.; motion for summary judgment granted and cross [554]*554motion denied. No fact questions were presented for review. Plaintiff, as the duly appointed receiver of rents in a mortgage foreclosure proceeding, who was appointed and qualified before respondent judgment creditor sought to levy on the rents by attachment, has priority over the judgment creditor (see New York Life Ins. Co. v Fulton Development Corp., 265 NY 348; People’s Trust Co. v Goodell, 134 Mise 692; Marks, Maloney and Paperno, Mortgages and Mortgage Foreclosure in New York [Rev ed], § 231). Martuscello, Acting P. J., Latham, Margett, Rabin and Hawkins, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

54 A.D.2d 553, 387 N.Y.S.2d 5, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13861, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/connolly-v-plaza-cards-gifts-nyappdiv-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack