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.
COLUMBUS REALTY INVESTMENT CORPORATION, etc., appellant, v. G & S WINDING ROAD, L.P., etc., et al., defendants, H. Lee Blumberg, nonparty respondent.
In an action to foreclose a mortgage on real property, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Floyd, J.), entered September 29, 1997, which denied its motion (1) to vacate that portion of an order of the same court dated March 16, 1995, discharging the former receiver of the real property, and (2) for leave to prosecute an action against him.
ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion is granted.
It is well settled that an action against a former receiver may not be maintained unless the order of discharge is vacated and leave to prosecute an action is granted (see, Copeland v. Salomon, 56 N.Y.2d 222, 451 N.Y.S.2d 682, 436 N.E.2d 1284). Here, after commencing an action against, among others, the former receiver to recover damages for negligence and breach of fiduciary duties, the plaintiff moved to vacate the order discharging the former receiver and for leave to sue. The court denied the motion citing the doctrine of laches and the plaintiff's failure to demonstrate a ground for relief as specified in CPLR 5015.
Inasmuch as the former receiver failed to demonstrate “lack of knowledge or notice * * * that the complainant would assert his or her claim for relief”, or “injury or prejudice * * * in the event that relief is accorded the complainant” (Cohen v. Krantz, 227 A.D.2d 581, 582, 643 N.Y.S.2d 612), the court erred in relying on laches as a basis to deny the plaintiff's motion (see, 149 Clinton Ave. North v. Grassi, 51 A.D.2d 502, 382 N.Y.S.2d 185). Furthermore, while the plaintiff did not demonstrate a ground for relief from the discharge order as specified in CPLR 5105, under the particular circumstances of this case and considering the court's inherent power to grant relief in the furtherance of justice, the court should have granted the motion to vacate that portion of the order dated March 16, 1995, discharging the receiver (see, Alliance Prop. Mgt. & Dev. v. Andrews Ave. Equities, 70 N.Y.2d 831, 523 N.Y.S.2d 441, 517 N.E.2d 1327; Ladd v. Stevenson, 112 N.Y. 325, 332, 19 N.E. 842).
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
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 19, 1999
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)