Morgan v. Steingut

New York Supreme Court

Morgan v. Steingut

157 Misc. 215, 282 N.Y.S. 378, 1935 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1435

CourtNew York Supreme Court

DecidedSeptember 5, 1935

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 157 Misc. 215 (Morgan v. Steingut) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Morgan v. Steingut, 157 Misc. 215, 282 N.Y.S. 378, 1935 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1435 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1935).

Pincite

Opinion

May, J.

I have read no authority which holds that where a receiver is empowered to make repairs and has funds in his possession to make the same, he may not be chargeable in tort for failure to make repairs where there exists a dangerous and defective condition constituting a nuisance. A receiver is under a duty to collect rents, to safeguard property, and to protect those using the property, where proper provision is made in the order appointing him and he has the moneys available for such purposes. To permit a receiver to neglect the performance of the duties for which he was specifically appointed and after damage has occurred to absolve him from responsibility, merely because he committed no affirmative act, is contrary to law and justice. Under such circumstances, he was under a legal and moral obligation to act and his failure so to do makes him chargeable therefor.

Motion for judgment on the pleadings denied.

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

May, J.

I have read no authority which holds that where a receiver is empowered to make repairs and has funds in his possession to make the same, he may not be chargeable in tort for failure to make repairs where there exists a dangerous and defective condition constituting a nuisance. A receiver is under a duty to collect rents, to safeguard property, and to protect those using the property, where proper provision is made in the order appointing him and he has the moneys available for such purposes. To permit a receiver to neglect the performance of the duties for which he was specifically appointed and after damage has occurred to absolve him from responsibility, merely because he committed no affirmative act, is contrary to law and justice. Under such circumstances, he was under a legal and moral obligation to act and his failure so to do makes him chargeable therefor.

Motion for judgment on the pleadings denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

157 Misc. 215, 282 N.Y.S. 378, 1935 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1435, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/morgan-v-steingut-nysupct-1935.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack