Lowenstein v. Reikes
| Decision Date | 03 March 1932 |
| Parties | LOWENSTEIN v. REIKES et al. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Action by William Lowenstein, as trustee in bankruptcy of Meyer Reikes, against Anna Reikes. From an order of the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department (234 App. Div. 676, 251 N. Y. S. 993) directing Kommel & Zucker, attorneys at law, to pay to the chamberlain the proceeds of the sale of real property sold by the defendant during the pendency of the action, the attorneys appeal.
Order reversed, and motion denied.
Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.
Louis M. Kommel, of New York City, for appellants.
Jacob M. Zinaman, of New York City, for respondent.
Plaintiff, a trustee in bankruptcy, brought an action in the Supreme Court to set aside a conveyance of real property made by the bankrupt to the defendant, Annie Reikes, his wife. The court at Special Term dismissed the complaint, and, while an appeal was pending, the wife, who had already made a contract for the sale of the property, delivered a deed and received the purchase price, which was paid to her agents, the appellants, members of the bar. Of the amount so received ($4,432.28), the appellants paid out $814.25 for brokers' commissions, taxes, and other charges, and retained the balance, $3,618.03, for legal services rendered to their client in this suit and in others.
The Appellate Division, upon the appeal by the trustee in bankruptcy, reversed the judgment of dismissal. During the pendency of that appeal, the notice of lis pendens had remained of record, uncanceled. The appellants might have given an undertaking in accordance with Civil Practice Act, § 586, for the payment of any damages suffered by reason of the appeal. In that event, the defendant would have been stayed from disposing of the property. No such undertaking was given.
After the decision of the Appellate Division, which left the action still pending, for it had to do with nothing except the form of the complaint, the plaintiff made this motion for an order of restitution directed to the defendantand to the appellants, her attorneys. We are concerned at this time with the rights of the attorneys only.
The sale of the property during the pendency of the appeal was not a wrongful act. The plaintiff might have made it wrongful, or at all events ineffective, by filing an undertaking in accordance with the statute (Civil Practice Act, § 586), but this he refrained from...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. Gnekow v. U.S. Fidelity & Guar. Co., 37744.
...31 U.S. 8; State ex rel. v. Goldstein, 209 Mo. App. 102, 237 S.W. 814; Frasier's Executor v. Page, 82 Ky. 73; Lowenstein v. Reikes, 258 N.Y. 444, 180 N.E. 113; Marlee v. Bittar, 257 N.Y. 240, 177 N.E. 434; Nye v. U.S.F. & G. Co., 37 S.W. (2d) 988; Lanyon v. Chesney, 106 S.W. 522, 209 Mo. 1;......
-
State ex rel. and to Use of Gnekow v. U.S. Fidelity & Guar. Co.
...Washington, 31 U.S. 8; State ex rel. v. Goldstein, 209 Mo.App. 102, 237 S.W. 814; Frasier's Executor v. Page, 82 Ky. 73; Lowenstein v. Reikes, 258 N.Y. 444, 180 N.E. 113; Marlee v. Bittar, 257 N.Y. 240, 177 N.E. Nye v. U. S. F. & G. Co., 37 S.W.2d 988; Lanyon v. Chesney, 106 S.W. 522, 209 M......
-
Cox v. Cox, 99-P-1509.
... ... See Wall v. Johnson, 80 So.2d 362 (Fla.1955); Martin v. Lenahan, 658 So.2d 119 (Fla.App.1995); Lowenstein v. Reikes, 258 N.Y. 444, 180 N.E. 113 ... Page 961 ... (1932); Munitz v. Munitz, 132 N.Y.S.2d 644 (1954); Herkert v. Stauber, 127 Wis.2d 87, ... ...
-
United States v. Bedford Associates
...from the government's overpayments. See Equilease Corp. v. Hentz, 634 F.2d 850, 853 (5th Cir. 1981); see generally Lowenstein v. Reikes, 258 N.Y. 444, 180 N.E. 113 (1932); Millfield Realty Co. v. Joseph P. Day, Inc., 257 N.Y. 515, 178 N.E. 775 (1931); Youmans v. Edgerton, 91 N.Y. 403 (1883)......