From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

CROSSLAND SAV. v. LoGUIDICE-CHATWAL REAL EST

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jan 11, 1990
157 A.D.2d 504 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)

Opinion

January 11, 1990

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Diane Lebedeff, J.).


In this mortgage foreclosure action, the plaintiff mortgagee bank originally obtained an ex parte order appointing a receiver, pursuant to the provisions of the mortgage. That provision, which in effect adopts the language of Real Property Law § 254 (10), authorizes the appointment without notice and without regard to the adequacy of any security. Subsequently, the parties arranged to suspend the appointment, but without prejudice to their respective rights.

In reinstating the receiver on plaintiff's application, the court did not transgress the standards of CPLR 6401 (a). As previously noted, the mortgage authorizes the appointment without regard to the adequacy of the security, and it is undisputed that the defendant mortgagor defaulted in both interest and principal. (Manufacturers Traders Trust Co. v. Cottrell, 80 A.D.2d 744.)

Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Asch, Kassal, Smith and Rubin, JJ.


Summaries of

CROSSLAND SAV. v. LoGUIDICE-CHATWAL REAL EST

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jan 11, 1990
157 A.D.2d 504 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)
Case details for

CROSSLAND SAV. v. LoGUIDICE-CHATWAL REAL EST

Case Details

Full title:CROSSLAND SAVINGS, FSB, Respondent, v. LoGUIDICE-CHATWAL REAL ESTATE…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Jan 11, 1990

Citations

157 A.D.2d 504 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)
549 N.Y.S.2d 697

Citing Cases

Jpmorgan Chase Bank v. Faith Ministries, Inc.

In this case the appointment of the receiver was indeed appropriate. Finally, it is proper to deny a…

HSBC Bank U.S. v. Rubin

These statutes have been interpreted as being consistent with one another (seeMandel v. Nero, 52 Misc.2d 604,…