Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
KAUFMAN PROPERTIES & ASSOCIATES, LLC, Appellant, v. 2 COURT STREET, LLC, et al., Defendants. Larry Sall, Respondent.
Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Lebous, J.), entered June 29, 2007 in Broome County, which, among other things, approved the final accounting of receiver Larry Sall.
During the pendency of a mortgage foreclosure action (i.e., from November 2004 until October 2006), Larry Sall served as the court-appointed receiver of a commercial property in the City of Binghamton, Broome County. Management of this property involved the collection of rents in excess of $850,000, as well as daily oversight of the premises. Supreme Court's approval of Sall's final accounting is the subject of this appeal by plaintiff.
Plaintiff's principal contention is that Sall wrongfully profited as a result of the hiring by his own property management firm of an employee who was paid at an hourly rate less than the amount billed to the receivership for his services. A receiver, as an officer of the court, can have no liability for actions performed “within the scope of his authority pursuant to the receivership order” (Bankers Fed. Sav. v. Off W. Broadway Devs., 227 A.D.2d 306, 306, 643 N.Y.S.2d 52 [1996] ). Here, the proposed management agreement between Sall and his own property management firm was submitted to Supreme Court (Relihan Jr., J.) for its express approval at the outset of the receivership. That agreement specifically authorized Sall to compensate his firm for property management services at a particular hourly rate. Since Sall's conduct was consistent with the order of appointment, it “should not be nullified except for grave and sufficient reason” (Judah v. Cold Stream Golf Club Corp., 240 App.Div. 893, 894, 267 N.Y.S. 348 [1933] ). Finding none here, we are unable to say that Supreme Court abused its discretion in approving Sall's accounting.
We likewise find unavailing plaintiff's challenges to Supreme Court's award of the maximum statutory allowance for Sall's commissions (see CPLR 8004 [a] ) or his counsel fees. Even acknowledging the dispute over the level of compensation charged to the receivership for the on-site property manager, we discern no “evidence of mismanagement or wasting of assets” (Constellation Bank v. Binghamton Plaza, 236 A.D.2d 698, 700, 653 N.Y.S.2d 208 [1997] ) sufficient to deny a full commission (see David Realty & Funding, LLC v. Second Ave. Realty Co., 14 A.D.3d 450, 451, 788 N.Y.S.2d 371 [2005] ). Nor do we agree that the invoices of the attorneys retained by Sall were so lacking in detail that the reasonableness and necessity of the services rendered could not properly be ascertained and approved by Supreme Court.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
CARPINELLO, J.
CARDONA, P.J., ROSE, MALONE JR. and STEIN, JJ., concur.
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: May 08, 2008
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)