Hiatrides v. Tobler

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hiatrides v. Tobler

59 A.D.2d 924, 399 N.Y.S.2d 259, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14138

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

DecidedNovember 21, 1977

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 59 A.D.2d 924 (Hiatrides v. Tobler) 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

Hiatrides v. Tobler, 59 A.D.2d 924, 399 N.Y.S.2d 259, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14138 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, on a promissory note, defendants appeal, as limited by their briéf, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, dated June 23, 1977, as granted plaintiff-respondent’s motion for the appointment' of a temporary receiver pursuant to CPLR 6401. Order affirmed, insofar as appealed from, with $50 costs and disbursements. Special Term did not abuse its discretion in appointing the receiver (see 7A Weinstein-Korn-Miller, NY Civ Prac, par 6401.05). The appointment of the receiver with the supervision of the court, upon advance notice and opportunity to be heard, and the requirement of the posting of a bond, did not deny defendant due process of law (see Mitchell v W. T. Grant Co., 416 US 600). Gulotta, P. J., Hopkins, Latham and Mollen, JJ., concur.

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

In an action, inter alia, on a promissory note, defendants appeal, as limited by their briéf, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, dated June 23, 1977, as granted plaintiff-respondent’s motion for the appointment' of a temporary receiver pursuant to CPLR 6401. Order affirmed, insofar as appealed from, with $50 costs and disbursements. Special Term did not abuse its discretion in appointing the receiver (see 7A Weinstein-Korn-Miller, NY Civ Prac, par 6401.05). The appointment of the receiver with the supervision of the court, upon advance notice and opportunity to be heard, and the requirement of the posting of a bond, did not deny defendant due process of law (see Mitchell v W. T. Grant Co., 416 US 600). Gulotta, P. J., Hopkins, Latham and Mollen, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

59 A.D.2d 924, 399 N.Y.S.2d 259, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14138, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hiatrides-v-tobler-nyappdiv-1977.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack