Hidais v. Racer

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hidais v. Racer

106 A.D.3d 821, 966 N.Y.S.2d 439

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

DecidedMay 8, 2013

StatusPublished

This text of 106 A.D.3d 821 (Hidais v. Racer) 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

Hidais v. Racer, 106 A.D.3d 821, 966 N.Y.S.2d 439 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

In a turnover proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 52, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Solomon, J.), dated November 28, 2011, which denied the petition.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly denied the petition, which seeks the turnover of funds held by Samuel Racer, the respondent, pursuant to an escrow agreement dated August 27, 2001. The petitioner seeks those funds as payment on a purchase money mortgage dated May 20, 1999, given to nonparties Abraham Douek and Gershon Booso as mortgagors. However, no judgment exists establishing the petitioner’s right to the turnover of any money or debt from Douek and Booso, whether by reaching into the escrow funds held by Racer or by any other means (see CPLR 5201, 5225 [b]; 5227; Matter of Miraglia v Essex Ins. Co., 96 AD3d 945 [2012]). While the petitioner commenced a mortgage foreclosure action in 2005, that action was dismissed as abandoned in June 2006. Dillon, J.E, Balkin, Austin and Cohen, JJ., concur.

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

In a turnover proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 52, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Solomon, J.), dated November 28, 2011, which denied the petition.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly denied the petition, which seeks the turnover of funds held by Samuel Racer, the respondent, pursuant to an escrow agreement dated August 27, 2001. The petitioner seeks those funds as payment on a purchase money mortgage dated May 20, 1999, given to nonparties Abraham Douek and Gershon Booso as mortgagors. However, no judgment exists establishing the petitioner’s right to the turnover of any money or debt from Douek and Booso, whether by reaching into the escrow funds held by Racer or by any other means (see CPLR 5201, 5225 [b]; 5227; Matter of Miraglia v Essex Ins. Co., 96 AD3d 945 [2012]). While the petitioner commenced a mortgage foreclosure action in 2005, that action was dismissed as abandoned in June 2006. Dillon, J.E, Balkin, Austin and Cohen, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

106 A.D.3d 821, 966 N.Y.S.2d 439, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hidais-v-racer-nyappdiv-2013.