Sandelman v. 21 East 63rd Street Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sandelman v. 21 East 63rd Street Corp.

23 A.D.2d 649, 257 N.Y.S.2d 511, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4641

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

DecidedMarch 18, 1965

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 23 A.D.2d 649 (Sandelman v. 21 East 63rd 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

Sandelman v. 21 East 63rd Street Corp., 23 A.D.2d 649, 257 N.Y.S.2d 511, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4641 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, entered on October 26, 1964, granting, inter alla, allowances to the receiver and the attorney for the receiver, unanimously modified, on the law, on the facts, and in the exercise of discretion to reduce the fees awarded to each to $600, with $30 costs and disbursements to plaintiff-appellant-respondent against respondent-appellant receiver and respondent-appellant attorney for the receiver. In this mortgage foreclosure action the receiver and his attorney functioned as such only for a few months, the foreclosure ending shortly in a settlement. Although no assets ever came into the receiver’s hands, he was nevertheless entitled to the reasonable value of his services (CPLR 8004; McHarg v. Commonwealth Fin. Corp., 195 App. Div. 862, 865-866). No rents were collected and the only unusual aspect of the proceeding was the necessity for fixing the rent of a tenant. The expert testimony offered in such a simple proceeding did not justify anything approaching the appraisal fees usually charged by the receiver (cf. Niagara Life Ins. Co. v. Lincoln Mige. Co., 175 App. Div. 415, 416). The subsequent appraisal and the foreclosure is subject to a comparable evaluation. The attorney also had less than the usual responsibilities associated with the early stages of a foreclosure proceeding and the handling of the relatively simple rent fixation proceeding. The awards, therefore, of $850 for the receiver and $1,000 for the attorney were excessive. Concur — Breitel, J. P., McNally, Stevens and Eager, JJ.

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

Order, entered on October 26, 1964, granting, inter alla, allowances to the receiver and the attorney for the receiver, unanimously modified, on the law, on the facts, and in the exercise of discretion to reduce the fees awarded to each to $600, with $30 costs and disbursements to plaintiff-appellant-respondent against respondent-appellant receiver and respondent-appellant attorney for the receiver. In this mortgage foreclosure action the receiver and his attorney functioned as such only for a few months, the foreclosure ending shortly in a settlement. Although no assets ever came into the receiver’s hands, he was nevertheless entitled to the reasonable value of his services (CPLR 8004; McHarg v. Commonwealth Fin. Corp., 195 App. Div. 862, 865-866). No rents were collected and the only unusual aspect of the proceeding was the necessity for fixing the rent of a tenant. The expert testimony offered in such a simple proceeding did not justify anything approaching the appraisal fees usually charged by the receiver (cf. Niagara Life Ins. Co. v. Lincoln Mige. Co., 175 App. Div. 415, 416). The subsequent appraisal and the foreclosure is subject to a comparable evaluation. The attorney also had less than the usual responsibilities associated with the early stages of a foreclosure proceeding and the handling of the relatively simple rent fixation proceeding. The awards, therefore, of $850 for the receiver and $1,000 for the attorney were excessive. Concur — Breitel, J. P., McNally, Stevens and Eager, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

23 A.D.2d 649, 257 N.Y.S.2d 511, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4641, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sandelman-v-21-east-63rd-street-corp-nyappdiv-1965.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack