Pfeifer v. 1770 West Sixth Street Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Pfeifer v. 1770 West Sixth Street Corp.

234 A.D. 777

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

DecidedNovember 15, 1931

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 234 A.D. 777 (Pfeifer v. 1770 West Sixth Street Corp.) 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

Pfeifer v. 1770 West Sixth Street Corp., 234 A.D. 777 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1931).

Pincite

Opinion

Order modified by allowing counsel for the receiver the sum of $500 instead of $400 as therein provided, and by changing the sum of $4,166.63, appearing twice in the fourth decretal paragraph of the order, to $4,066.63 in each instance. As so modified, the order is affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements to respondent. Without special direction in the order appointing him, a receiver of rents is not authorized to charge as an expense the services of an agent who collects the rents for him. Such special direction should be made only when circumstances require it. Here, although the order provides for the hiring and employing of such persons as may be necessary, even if it were deemed the special direction above mentioned, the facts show that the employment of an agent to collect the rents was not necessary. Lazansky, P. J., Young, Kapper, Hagarty and Seudder, JJ., concur.

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

Order modified by allowing counsel for the receiver the sum of $500 instead of $400 as therein provided, and by changing the sum of $4,166.63, appearing twice in the fourth decretal paragraph of the order, to $4,066.63 in each instance. As so modified, the order is affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements to respondent. Without special direction in the order appointing him, a receiver of rents is not authorized to charge as an expense the services of an agent who collects the rents for him. Such special direction should be made only when circumstances require it. Here, although the order provides for the hiring and employing of such persons as may be necessary, even if it were deemed the special direction above mentioned, the facts show that the employment of an agent to collect the rents was not necessary. Lazansky, P. J., Young, Kapper, Hagarty and Seudder, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

234 A.D. 777, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pfeifer-v-1770-west-sixth-street-corp-nyappdiv-1931.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack