Gant v. Levine

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Gant v. Levine

52 A.D.2d 925, 383 N.Y.S.2d 86, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12776

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

DecidedMay 17, 1976

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 52 A.D.2d 925 (Gant v. Levine) 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

Gant v. Levine, 52 A.D.2d 925, 383 N.Y.S.2d 86, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12776 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by Bernard Levine, receiver, from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated October 9, 1975, which granted petitioners’ application, inter alia, (1) to vacate a prior order of the same court, dated February 9, 1972, which, inter alia, settled his account as receiver and (2) for permission to sue him. Order affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements. A showing of affirmative negligence by a receiver is not necessary in order to hold him liable in his official capacity (see General Obligations Law, § 9-101; Munoz v Pappas, 16 AD2d 142). Accordingly, the order of Special Term, inter alia, vacating the discharge of appellant as receiver, was proper. Cohalan, Acting P. J., Margett, Damiani, Rabin and Shapiro, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by Bernard Levine, receiver, from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated October 9, 1975, which granted petitioners’ application, inter alia, (1) to vacate a prior order of the same court, dated February 9, 1972, which, inter alia, settled his account as receiver and (2) for permission to sue him. Order affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements. A showing of affirmative negligence by a receiver is not necessary in order to hold him liable in his official capacity (see General Obligations Law, § 9-101; Munoz v Pappas, 16 AD2d 142). Accordingly, the order of Special Term, inter alia, vacating the discharge of appellant as receiver, was proper. Cohalan, Acting P. J., Margett, Damiani, Rabin and Shapiro, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

52 A.D.2d 925, 383 N.Y.S.2d 86, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12776, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gant-v-levine-nyappdiv-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack