Eastern Capital Corp. v. Freeman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Eastern Capital Corp. v. Freeman

19 A.D.2d 617, 241 N.Y.S.2d 407, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3536

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

DecidedJune 25, 1963

StatusPublished

This text of 19 A.D.2d 617 (Eastern Capital Corp. v. Freeman) 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

Eastern Capital Corp. v. Freeman, 19 A.D.2d 617, 241 N.Y.S.2d 407, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3536 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1963).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, entered on May 15, 1963, unanimously reversed and vacated on the law and on the facts, without costs, and motion for an order authorizing the receiver in supplementary proceedings to retain an attorney in all respects denied. The petition by the receiver for the appointment of an attorney merely stated that “ There are presently no assets of the debtor available to the judgment creditor”; and that “Your petitioner is of the belief that such assets may be able to be obtained by proceedings brought pursuant to section 270 et seg. of the Debtor & Creditor Law.” There is nothing in the petition, however, to indicate the basis or propriety for any such proceedings by the receiver. In view of the requirement that the petition to authorize a receiver to employ counsel shall show “ that the employment of counsel is necessary ” (Rules Civ. Prae., rule 180) the order here is not properly supported. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Rabin, McNally, Eager and Steuer, JJ.

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

Order, entered on May 15, 1963, unanimously reversed and vacated on the law and on the facts, without costs, and motion for an order authorizing the receiver in supplementary proceedings to retain an attorney in all respects denied. The petition by the receiver for the appointment of an attorney merely stated that “ There are presently no assets of the debtor available to the judgment creditor”; and that “Your petitioner is of the belief that such assets may be able to be obtained by proceedings brought pursuant to section 270 et seg. of the Debtor & Creditor Law.” There is nothing in the petition, however, to indicate the basis or propriety for any such proceedings by the receiver. In view of the requirement that the petition to authorize a receiver to employ counsel shall show “ that the employment of counsel is necessary ” (Rules Civ. Prae., rule 180) the order here is not properly supported. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Rabin, McNally, Eager and Steuer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

19 A.D.2d 617, 241 N.Y.S.2d 407, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3536, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/eastern-capital-corp-v-freeman-nyappdiv-1963.