TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Wellington Associates, Inc. v. Dapin Hotel Corp.

Wellington Associates, Inc. v. Dapin Hotel Corp., 26 A.D.2d 623 (1966)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · State Appellate Courts
Decided
July 7, 1966
Citations
26 A.D.2d 623272 N.Y.S.2d 7011966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3600

Opinion of the Court

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Order, entered May 9, 1966, directing a special reference to take the account of a Receiver and to determine other matters, unanimously modified, on the law, pn the facts, and in the exercise of discretion, without costs or disbursements to any party, to the extent of limiting the reference to the propriety flf fhp Receivers accounts, proper claims constituting liens against the fund and those listed in the Receiver’s accounts, including those, if any, for services rendered, and any surcharges that defendant may be able to establis h, and directing the Receiver to withdraw from all purported representations of *624 defendant in divers litigations. The receivership having been twice vacated by this court (24 A D 2d 736; 24 A D 2d 860) the Receiver has been grossly and inexcusably lax in failing to wind up the matter, as previously directed by this court, and turning back the funds to defendant. It is only the stipulation between plaintiff and defendant with respect to payment of any charges appropriate to the receivership out of the funds in question that suggests there should not be an immediate turnover. However, the proceedings before the Special Referee should be terminated with utmost expedition and the balance of the funds turned over to defendant. If for any reason not due to the fault of the defendant the proceedings cannot be terminated within 20 days after service of the order herein with notice of entry thereof, then the funds should be returned to defendant forthwith by order of the court with appropriate provisions for claims of third parties entitled to recognition, if any. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Rabin, Eager, Steuer and Capozzoli, JJ.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 0 cases

No case in this database cites this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list