Dyker Heights Home for Blind Children, Inc. v. Stolitzky

250 A.D. 229, 294 N.Y.S. 15, 1937 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8310
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMarch 12, 1937
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 250 A.D. 229 (Dyker Heights Home for Blind Children, Inc. v. Stolitzky) 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
Dyker Heights Home for Blind Children, Inc. v. Stolitzky, 250 A.D. 229, 294 N.Y.S. 15, 1937 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8310 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1937).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This is an action to foreclose a mortgage upon real property. The respondent was duly appointed receiver of the rents, issues and profits of the mortgaged premises on July 24, 1936, but did not qualify until August 11,1936, before which date he was not [230]*230entitled to collect rents due and unpaid. (Smith v. Nannen, No. 2, 231 App. Div. 236; Brewster v. Brewster Co., 145 id. 812.) The appellant, second mortgagee, under an assignment of the rents from the owner, collected the rent due August 1, 1936, from the tenant Castignetta, but not that due on the same date from the tenant Gordon. Appellant was within her rights in retaining as against the receiver, who had not then qualified, the Castignetta rent. The plaintiff has, and hence the receiver has, a first lien upon the Gordon rent unpaid, and is entitled to collect it. (N. Y. Life Ins. Co. v. Fulton Development Corp., 265 N. Y. 348.) Appellant, although claiming to appear specially upon the motion resulting in the order from which the appeal is taken, disputed the merits of that motion as asserted by the receiver, and, therefore, is estopped from denying the jurisdiction of the court over her person, having become an actor in the suit by her participation therein. (Henderson v. Henderson, 247 N. Y. 428.)

The order fixing rents should be modified (1) by striking therefrom the direction that appellant turn over to the receiver all rents collected since the commencement of the receivership, July 24, 1936; (2) by striking from the second ordering paragraph the words “ Sam. Castignetta 2nd floor August 1st ” and inserting in lieu thereof the words “ Sam. Castignetta 2nd floor September 1st.” As so modified, the order in so far as an appeal is taken, should be affirmed, without costs.

Lazansky, P. J., Hagarty, Carswell, Adel and Taylor, JJ., concur.

Order fixing rents modified by striking therefrom the direction that appellant turn over to the receiver all rents collected since the commencement of the receivership, July 24, 1936, and by striking from the second ordering paragraph the words Sam. Castignetta 2nd floor August 1st,” and inserting in lieu thereof the words “ Sam. Castignetta 2nd floor September 1st.” As so modified, the order, in so far as an appeal is taken, is affirmed, without costs.

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

Related

Wells Fargo Bank v. Butler
41 Misc. 3d 547 (New York Supreme Court, 2013)
Harris Investing Corp. v. Sil-Gold Corp.
38 Misc. 2d 549 (New York Supreme Court, 1962)
In re the Estate of Martin
29 Misc. 2d 274 (New York Surrogate's Court, 1961)
Dlouhy v. Dlouhy
349 P.2d 1073 (Washington Supreme Court, 1960)
Forbell v. Forbell
274 A.D. 807 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1948)
Feinberg v. Enselberg
185 Misc. 358 (New York Supreme Court, 1945)
Petker v. Rudolph
168 Misc. 909 (New York Supreme Court, 1938)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
250 A.D. 229, 294 N.Y.S. 15, 1937 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8310, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dyker-heights-home-for-blind-children-inc-v-stolitzky-nyappdiv-1937.