From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hirsch v. Peekskill Ranch, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 9, 1984
100 A.D.2d 863 (N.Y. App. Div. 1984)

Summary

interpreting CPLR 8004

Summary of this case from Matter of Kane

Opinion

April 9, 1984


In an action to foreclose a mortgage, plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Wood, J.), dated July 21, 1983, which fixed the receiver's commission at $2,000. ¶ Order reversed, with costs, and matter remitted to Special Term for further proceedings consistent herewith. ¶ A receiver is entitled to commissions not exceeding 5% of the sums received and disbursed by him (CPLR 8004, subd [a]). This 5% statutory commission is the maximum amount payable to a receiver ( Caso v 323 Edgecombe Realty Corp., 25 A.D.2d 637; Siegel v Bromanbro Realty Corp., 23 A.D.2d 634; City of New York v Big Six Towers, 59 Misc.2d 839; 8 Weinstein-Korn-Miller, N Y Civ Prac, par 8004.01). ¶ However, in addition to the statutory commission, a receiver is entitled to be reimbursed for expenditures made by him which are necessary to preserve the receivership property and which are authorized by the order appointing him ( City of New York v Big Six Towers, supra; Beirne v Habel, 20 A.D.2d 891; 8 Weinstein-Korn-Miller, N Y Civ Prac, par 8004.04). ¶ Because the commission fixed by Special Term exceeded that permitted by the statute (CPLR 8004, subd [a]), the order appealed from must be reversed, and the matter remitted to Special Term for a new determination in accordance with the foregoing principles. The receiver should be given an opportunity to present any claims for necessary expenditures for which he is entitled to reimbursement. Mollen, P.J., Thompson, Rubin and Lawrence, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Hirsch v. Peekskill Ranch, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 9, 1984
100 A.D.2d 863 (N.Y. App. Div. 1984)

interpreting CPLR 8004

Summary of this case from Matter of Kane

interpreting CPLR 8004

Summary of this case from Goldman v. Bernardini
Case details for

Hirsch v. Peekskill Ranch, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:MOE HIRSCH et al., Appellants, v. PEEKSKILL RANCH, INC., et al.…

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

Date published: Apr 9, 1984

Citations

100 A.D.2d 863 (N.Y. App. Div. 1984)

Citing Cases

Matter of Kane

To allow the receiver to receive a commission higher than that allowed by the statute is contrary to its…

Matter of Kane

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs to the appellants payable by the receiver, the…