From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Katz

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 16, 1995
220 A.D.2d 590 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)

Opinion

October 16, 1995

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hurowitz, J.).


Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The petitioner, Benjamin Katz, moved for dissolution of a corporation in which he was a 50% shareholder. His partner Yeshaya Weinstock held the remainder of the shares. The corporation's principal asset was a building located at 3720 14th Avenue, Brooklyn, N.Y. The Supreme Court appointed Israel Goldberg as receiver. The receivership was terminated when the partners reconciled and the petitioner withdrew his petition for dissolution. The Supreme Court thereafter granted Goldberg's motion to confirm his account and settle his commission. The petitioner now challenges the validity of the receiver's account, and argues that due to "gross mismanagement" the receiver should be denied his commission.

There is nothing in the record to support the petitioner's claim of gross mismanagement on the part of Goldberg. Neither does the record support the petitioner's accusation that Goldberg or the management company he hired either wasted assets or unfairly charged for their services ( cf., Coronet Capital Co. v. Spodek, 202 A.D.2d 20; Matter of Corcoran v. Joseph M. Corcoran, Inc., 154 A.D.2d 671). Because Goldberg submitted evidence that the income received and expenses incurred were commensurate with the operation of the building, and because the petitioner has not submitted any evidence that such services were either not warranted or were inadequate, the Supreme Court's determination confirming the accounting and approving the receiver's commission will not be disturbed ( see, Long Is. City Sav. Loan Assn. v. Bertsman Bldg. Corp., 123 A.D.2d 840). Additionally, because all of the expenses, including the management fee and the receiver's commission, were itemized in the accounting and were properly calculated as a percentage of the income generated during the time of the receivership, there was no need for a hearing to determine the propriety of these expenses ( see, Matter of Corcoran v. Joseph M. Corcoran, Inc., 135 A.D.2d 531; cf., Coronet Capital Co. v. Spodek, supra). Rosenblatt, J.P., Miller, Ritter and Friedmann, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Matter of Katz

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 16, 1995
220 A.D.2d 590 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
Case details for

Matter of Katz

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of BENJAMIN KATZ, Appellant. ISRAEL GOLDBERG, Respondent

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

Date published: Oct 16, 1995

Citations

220 A.D.2d 590 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
632 N.Y.S.2d 616

Citing Cases

Constellation Bank v. Binghamton Plaza

95 which Wick claimed was for profit, overhead and other employee-related expenses as there was no…