Fischer v. Fischer

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Fischer v. Fischer

118 A.D.2d 408, 499 N.Y.S.2d 875, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 54298

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

DecidedMarch 4, 1986

StatusPublished

This text of 118 A.D.2d 408 (Fischer v. Fischer) 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

Fischer v. Fischer, 118 A.D.2d 408, 499 N.Y.S.2d 875, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 54298 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

Order of Supreme Court, New York County (Hortense W. Gabel, J.), entered May 6, 1985, which granted plaintiff wife’s motion for the appointment of Richard J. Kurtz, Esq. as counsel to plaintiff in her capacity as receiver of various properties, which motion was granted nunc pro tunc as of July 1, 1984, is unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, with leave granted to plaintiff to seek appointment of an attorney, after designation of a coreceiver, upon proper application.

By a prior order of Justice Gabel, plaintiff wife was appointed sole receiver of defendant’s interests in property located in Brooklyn, Queens, Monsey, New York and Jerusalem. Upon defendant’s appeal we modified that order to provide for appointment by the court of an independent core[409]*409ceiver and we directed that further applications be submitted to the Justice then presiding in Part V. (Fischer v Fischer, 111 AD2d 25.)

The present order appointing Mr. Kurtz, plaintiffs attorney in the matrimonial action, as counsel to plaintiff in her capacity as receiver was issued just prior to this court’s earlier decision. An appointment of an independent coreceiver was never made, and the motion for appointment of counsel was not addressed to the Justice presiding in Part V. Because of such noncompliance with our prior order, we reverse the order appealed herein, but grant plaintiff leave to seek appointment of an attorney after designation of an independent coreceiver. We note also that the attorney for the receiver was not appointed in conformity with Bronx and New York County Supreme Court Rules § 660.24 (22 NYCRR). Concur — Sandler, J. P., Carro, Asch, Fein and Lynch, JJ.

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

Order of Supreme Court, New York County (Hortense W. Gabel, J.), entered May 6, 1985, which granted plaintiff wife’s motion for the appointment of Richard J. Kurtz, Esq. as counsel to plaintiff in her capacity as receiver of various properties, which motion was granted nunc pro tunc as of July 1, 1984, is unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, with leave granted to plaintiff to seek appointment of an attorney, after designation of a coreceiver, upon proper application.

By a prior order of Justice Gabel, plaintiff wife was appointed sole receiver of defendant’s interests in property located in Brooklyn, Queens, Monsey, New York and Jerusalem. Upon defendant’s appeal we modified that order to provide for appointment by the court of an independent core[409]*409ceiver and we directed that further applications be submitted to the Justice then presiding in Part V. (Fischer v Fischer, 111 AD2d 25.)

The present order appointing Mr. Kurtz, plaintiffs attorney in the matrimonial action, as counsel to plaintiff in her capacity as receiver was issued just prior to this court’s earlier decision. An appointment of an independent coreceiver was never made, and the motion for appointment of counsel was not addressed to the Justice presiding in Part V. Because of such noncompliance with our prior order, we reverse the order appealed herein, but grant plaintiff leave to seek appointment of an attorney after designation of an independent coreceiver. We note also that the attorney for the receiver was not appointed in conformity with Bronx and New York County Supreme Court Rules § 660.24 (22 NYCRR). Concur — Sandler, J. P., Carro, Asch, Fein and Lynch, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

118 A.D.2d 408, 499 N.Y.S.2d 875, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 54298, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fischer-v-fischer-nyappdiv-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack