Naar v. IJ LITWAK & CO. INC.
| Decision Date | 26 April 1999 |
| Citation | 688 N.Y.S.2d 698,260 A.D.2d 613 |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
| Parties | JACOB B. NAAR et al., Respondents, and BERNARD STEIN et al., Appellants,<BR>v.<BR>I.J. LITWAK & CO., INC., et al., Respondents, et al., Defendants. |
S. Miller, J. P., O'Brien, Ritter and Santucci, JJ., concur.
Ordered that the appellants are awarded one bill of costs, payable by the defendants-respondents.
The appeal from so much of the order as, upon granting the appellants' application for a substitution of counsel, determined that no attorney-client relationship existed between them and Finkel Goldstein Berzow & Rosenbloom as of August 16, 1996, must be dismissed, as findings of fact are not independently appealable (see, Matter of County of Westchester v O'Neill, 191 AD2d 556; Benedetto v O'Grady, 10 AD2d 628). The appellants do not request vacatur or modification of any decretal provision of the order appealed from regarding this specific issue, nor have they alleged that any such vacatur or modification or any other corrective measure would be warranted in the event that this Court were to agree with their argument. Therefore, their appeal from that part of the order must be dismissed.
The defendants-respondents clearly defaulted under the terms of the mortgage agreements and were admittedly in arrears on taxes and water and sewer charges. The mortgage agreements at issue each contain a covenant which mandates the appointment of a receiver upon default. Accordingly, the mortgagee was entitled to the appointment of a receiver regardless of proving the necessity for the appointment (see, Real Property Law § 254 [10]; Febbraro v Febbraro, 70 AD2d 584).
Although a court of equity may deny or vacate the appointment of a receiver under appropriate circumstances (see, Clinton Capital Corp. v One Tiffany Place Developers, 112 AD2d 911; Febbraro v Febbraro, supra; Home Tit. Ins. Co. v Scherman Holding Co., 240 App Div 851), it was an improvident exercise of discretion for the court to vacate the prior orders of appointment upon this record. Moreover, based on this record and the mandatory...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v. Rubin
...of the debt (see GECMC 2007–C1 Ditmars Lodging, LLC v. Mohola, LLC, 84 A.D.3d 1311, 1312, 924 N.Y.S.2d 531 ; Naar v. Litwak & Co., 260 A.D.2d 613, 614, 688 N.Y.S.2d 698 ; Baker v. Bloom, 146 A.D.2d 859, 860, 536 N.Y.S.2d 267 ; Manufacturers & Traders Trust Co. v. Cottrell, 80 A.D.2d 744, 43......
-
CitiBank, N.A. v. Van Brunt Props., LLC
...Property Law § 254[10]; Maspeth Fed. Sav. & Loan Assn. v. McGown, 77 A.D.3d 890, 891, 909 N.Y.S.2d 642;see also Naar v. Litwak & Co., 260 A.D.2d 613, 614, 688 N.Y.S.2d 698). [945 N.Y.S.2d 332] The Supreme Court also erred in granting the defendant mortgagor's cross motion for a judgment dec......
-
Maspeth Fed. Sav. and Loan Ass'n v. McGown
...of a receiver without notice and without regard to the adequacy of the security ( see Real Property Law § 254[10]; Naar v. Litwak & Co., 260 A.D.2d 613, 614, 688 N.Y.S.2d 698; Febbraro v. Febbraro, 70 A.D.2d 584, 585, 416 N.Y.S.2d 59). While a court of77 A.D.3d 890equity may vacate the appo......
-
Maspeth Fed. Sav. and Loan Ass'n v. McGown
...of a receiver without notice and without regard to the adequacy of the security ( see Real Property Law § 254[10]; Naar v. Litwak & Co., 260 A.D.2d 613, 614, 688 N.Y.S.2d 698; Febbraro v. Febbraro, 70 A.D.2d 584, 585, 416 N.Y.S.2d 59). While a court of equity may vacate the appointment of a......