Mancuso v. Kambourelis

72 A.D.2d 636, 421 N.Y.S.2d 130, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13772
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedOctober 18, 1979
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 72 A.D.2d 636 (Mancuso v. Kambourelis) 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
Mancuso v. Kambourelis, 72 A.D.2d 636, 421 N.Y.S.2d 130, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13772 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1979).

Opinion

Appeal from an order of the County Court of Greene County, entered February 13, 1979, granting plaintiffs’ request for appointment of a receiver. Defendants [637]*637purchased certain property, on which a restaurant was operated from plaintiffs and in return gave a purchase-money mortgage in the sum of $150,000. After defendants defaulted in the payment of amounts due for principal, interest and taxes, the instant foreclosure action was commenced on August 9, 1978. Thereafter, plaintiffs applied for and the court appointed, over defendants’ opposition, a receiver and fixed the sum of $2,000 as monthly rent. This appeal ensued. Basically, defendants contend that the court erred in appointing a receiver either pursuant to CPLR 6401 or section 1325 of the Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law. The mortgage in question, however, specifically authorized the appointment of a receiver on application of the mortgagee in an action to foreclose the mortgage. While such a clause authorizes the appointment of a receiver without notice and without regard to the adequacy of any security (Real Property Law, § 254, subd 10), a court of equity, in its discretion and under appropriate circumstances, may deny the application (Home Tit Ins. Co. v Scherman Holding Corp., 240 App Div 851; 15 Carmody-Wait 2d, § 92:476). On this record, we find no reason to disturb the court’s determination. The order should be affirmed. Order affirmed, without costs. Mahoney, P. J., Sweeney, Kane, Staley, Jr., and Mikoll, JJ., concur.

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

Related

HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v. Rubin
210 A.D.3d 73 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2022)
366 Fourth Street Corp. v. FoxFire Enterprises, Inc.
149 A.D.2d 692 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1989)
Citibank v. Nyland Cf8) Ltd.
839 F.2d 93 (Second Circuit, 1988)
Citibank, N.A. v. Nyland (CF8) Ltd.
839 F.2d 93 (Second Circuit, 1988)
First National Bank of Glens Falls v. Caputo
124 A.D.2d 417 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1986)
500 West 172nd Street Realty, Inc. v. Romax Properties Corp.
126 Misc. 2d 268 (New York Supreme Court, 1984)
Fairmont Associates v. Fairmont Estates
99 A.D.2d 895 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1984)
Manufacturers & Traders Trust Co. v. Cottrell
80 A.D.2d 744 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1981)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
72 A.D.2d 636, 421 N.Y.S.2d 130, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13772, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mancuso-v-kambourelis-nyappdiv-1979.