Hirsch v. Peekskill Ranch, Inc.

100 A.D.2d 863, 474 N.Y.S.2d 117, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17981
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedApril 9, 1984
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 100 A.D.2d 863 (Hirsch v. Peekskill Ranch, Inc.) 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
Hirsch v. Peekskill Ranch, Inc., 100 A.D.2d 863, 474 N.Y.S.2d 117, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17981 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1984).

Opinion

In an action to foreclose a mortgage, plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Wood, J.), dated July 21,1983, which fixed the receiver’s commission at $2,000. 11 Order reversed, with costs, and matter remitted to Special Term for further proceedings consistent herewith. 11A receiver is entitled to commissions not exceeding 5% of the sums received and disbursed by him (CPLR 8004, subd [a]). This 5% statutory commission is the maximum amount payable to a receiver (Caso v 323 Edgecombe Realty Corp., 25 AD2d 637; Siegel v Bromanbro Realty Corp., 23 AD2d 634; City of New York v Big Six Towers, 59 Mise 2d 839; 8 Weinstein-Korn-Miller, NY Civ Prac, par 8004.01). H However, in addition to the statutory commission, a receiver is entitled to be reimbursed for expenditures made by him which are necessary to preserve the receivership property and which are authorized by the order appointing him (City of New York vBig Six Towers, supra; Beirne v Habel, 20 AD2d 891; 8 Weinstein-KornMiller, NY Civ Prac, par 8004.04). H Because the commission fixed by Special Term exceeded that permitted by the statute (CPLR 8004, subd [a]), the order appealed from must be reversed, and the matter remitted to Special Term for a new determination in accordance with the foregoing principles. The receiver should be given an opportunity to present any claims for necessary expenditures for which he is entitled to reimbursement. Mollen, P. J., Thompson, Rubin and Lawrence, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Laffey v. Laffey
2019 NY Slip Op 5520 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2019)
Katz v. Glassworks LLC
2004 NY Slip Op 50161(U) (New York Supreme Court, New York County, 2004)
Goldman v. Bernardini
246 A.D.2d 510 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)
Friesch-Groningsche Hypotheekbank Realty Credit Corp. v. Semerjian
232 A.D.2d 448 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1996)
American Savings Bank v. Saleski Development, Inc.
812 F. Supp. 28 (S.D. New York, 1993)
In re Kane
553 N.E.2d 1005 (New York Court of Appeals, 1990)
Corcoran v. Corcoran
154 A.D.2d 671 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1989)
In re Kane
132 A.D.2d 610 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1987)
Amusement Distributors, Inc. v. Oz Forum, Inc.
113 A.D.2d 855 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1985)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
100 A.D.2d 863, 474 N.Y.S.2d 117, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17981, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hirsch-v-peekskill-ranch-inc-nyappdiv-1984.