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.
Theresa FLOTTERON, et al., plaintiffs-appellants, v. JEL REALTY, et al., defendants-appellants; Harrison J. Snell, nonparty-respondent.
In an action, inter alia, to dissolve certain partnerships, the plaintiffs and the defendants appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Dabiri, J.), dated April 3, 2008, as granted that branch of the motion of the permanent receiver, nonparty Harrison J. Snell, which was to fix the compensation to be paid to him to the extent of awarding him a commission in the sum of $59,230.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
Upon application of a receiver, the court may direct the parties who sought that appointment to pay necessary expenses and compensation which exceeds the money in the receiver's hands upon termination of the receivership (see generally CPLR 8004[b] ). Here, after the Supreme Court disbursed the remaining funds in the receiver's account to the property manager, it discharged the receiver. Under the circumstances presented, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in determining that special circumstances existed warranting a recovery in excess of five percent of the amount collected by the receiver in rents (see Sun Beam Enters. v. Liza Realty Corp., 210 A.D.2d 153, 621 N.Y.S.2d 9; Litho Fund Equities v. Alley Spring Apts. Corp., 94 A.D.2d 13, 16, 462 N.Y.S.2d 907; see also CFTC v. Korbean Intl. Inv. Corp., 1998 WL 770516, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17206 [S.D.N.Y.1998]; Resolution Trust Corp. v. Volpe, 912 F.Supp. 65, 67; American Sav. Bank v. Saleski Dev. Inc., 812 F.Supp. 28, 32; Federal Home Loan Mtge. Corp. v. S.E.A. Yonkers Assoc., 869 F.Supp. 187, 188). Thus, the court properly fixed the receiver's compensation “in accordance with the respective services [he] rendered” (CPLR 8004[b] ).
The appellants' remaining contentions are without merit.
Thank you for your feedback!
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: January 20, 2009
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second 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)