Crossland Savings Bank v. 65 Lenox Road Owners Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Crossland Savings Bank v. 65 Lenox Road Owners Corp.

232 A.D.2d 520, 648 N.Y.S.2d 973, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10456

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided October 21, 1996·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

—In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the plaintiff’s successor-in-interest appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Sunshine, R.), entered March 22, 1996, which denied its objections to a receiver’s final accounting.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the appellant’s objections to the receiver’s final accounting are sustained.

In view of the receiver’s admitted commingling of receivership funds with personal funds, his failure to adequately explain the transactions in question, and the inconsistencies in his testimony, the receiver did not meet his burden of justifying his account (see, Independent Props. Co. v Mast Prop. Investors, 148 AD2d 849, 850; East Chatham Corp. v Iacovone, 26 AD2d 433), and the Supreme Court erred in denying the appellant’s objections to the account. Mangano, P. J., Rosenblatt, Sullivan and Hart, 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, the plaintiff’s successor-in-interest appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Sunshine, R.), entered March 22, 1996, which denied its objections to a receiver’s final accounting.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the appellant’s objections to the receiver’s final accounting are sustained.

In view of the receiver’s admitted commingling of receivership funds with personal funds, his failure to adequately explain the transactions in question, and the inconsistencies in his testimony, the receiver did not meet his burden of justifying his account (see, Independent Props. Co. v Mast Prop. Investors, 148 AD2d 849, 850; East Chatham Corp. v Iacovone, 26 AD2d 433), and the Supreme Court erred in denying the appellant’s objections to the account. Mangano, P. J., Rosenblatt, Sullivan and Hart, JJ., concur.

Crossland Savings Bank v. 65 Lenox Road Owners Corp., 232 A.D.2d 520, 648 N.Y.S.2d 973, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10456 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

232 A.D.2d 520 (Crossland Savings Bank v. 65 Lenox Road Owners Corp.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related