green
Positive treatment
15.0 score
Treatment trajectory · 1991 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1991
2008
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 9 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Bronx 1202 Spofford Ave. L.P.
To be sure, a receiver is charged with "preserv[ing] and operat[ing] the property, within the confines of the order of appointment and any subsequent authorization granted to him by the court" ( Jacynicz v 73 Seaman Assoc. , 270 AD2d 83, 85 [1st Dept 2000] [internal quotation marks omitted].), and his/her powers are limited to those enumerated in the appointing order ( Daro Indus., Inc. v RAS Enterprises, Inc. , 44 NY2d 969, 970 [1978]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Wells Fargo Bank, Natl. Assn. v. Bronx 1202 Spofford Ave. L.P.
To be sure, a receiver is charged with "preserv[ing] and operat[ing] the property, within the confines of the order of appointment and any subsequent authorization granted to him by the court" ( Jacynicz v 73 Seaman Assoc. , 270 AD2d 83, 85 [1st Dept 2000] [internal quotation marks omitted].), and his/her powers are limited to those enumerated in the appointing order ( Daro Indus., Inc. v RAS Enterprises, Inc. , 44 NY2d 969, 970 [1978]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
JY Citizen L.P. v. 333 E. 150 St. Realty LLC
Applicable Law A receiver is charged with "preserv[ing] and operat[ing] the property, within the confines of the order of appointment and any subsequent authorization granted to him by the court" ( Jacynicz v 73 Seaman Assoc. , 270 AD2d 83, 85 [1st Dept 2000] [internal quotation marks [*3]omitted].), and his/her powers are limited to those enumerated in the appointing order ( Daro Indus., Inc. v RAS Enterprises, Inc. , 44 NY2d 969, 970 [1978]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
JY Citizen L.P. v. 333 E. 150 St. Realty LLC
Applicable Law A receiver is charged with "preserv[ing] and operat[ing] the property, within the confines of the order of appointment and any subsequent authorization granted to him by the court" ( Jacynicz v 73 Seaman Assoc. , 270 AD2d 83, 85 [1st Dept 2000] [internal quotation marks [*3]omitted].), and his/her powers are limited to those enumerated in the appointing order ( Daro Indus., Inc. v RAS Enterprises, Inc. , 44 NY2d 969, 970 [1978]).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Levine v. B and R Acquisition Partners, LLC and JHM Lending Ventures, LLC
Servs., Inc. v. Republic of Philippines, 962 F.2d 204 , 211 (2d Cir. 1992) (citing Daro Indus. v. RAS Enters., 44 N.Y.2d 969, 970 (1978)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Jacynicz v. 73 Seaman Associates
A temporary receiver may exercise only such powers as are granted pursuant to statute (CPLR 6401 [b]), as delimited by court order (Daro Indus. v RAS Enters., 44 NY2d 969, 970 [powers limited to those enumerated in the appointing order]).
discussed
Cited "see"
Security Pacific Mortgage And Real Estate Services, Inc. v. The Republic Of The Philippines
(2×)
See id. at 970, 408 N.Y.S.2d at 329, 380 N.E.2d 160 .
discussed
Cited "see"
Security Pacific Mortgage & Real Estate Services, Inc. v. Republic of the Philippines
(2×)
See id. at 970, 408 N.Y.S.2d at 329, 380 N.E.2d 160 .
examined
Cited "see, e.g."
Dowling v. Stapley
(3×)
See also Daro Indus., Inc. v. RAS Enterp., Inc., 56 A.D.2d 776 , 392 N.Y.S.2d 446 (1977), aff'd, 44 N.Y.2d 969 , 408 N.Y.S.2d 329 , 380 N.E.2d 160 (1978) (corporate owner of property in receivership has authority to file a complaint for the corporation without requesting receiver to bring the action because company had title to the company property).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Daro Industries, Inc., Et Al., Respondents,
v.
RAS Enterprises, Inc., Et Al., Appellants
v.
RAS Enterprises, Inc., Et Al., Appellants
New York Court of Appeals.
Jul 6, 1978.
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL, Herbert Monte Levy for appellants., William L. Finger and Stephanie Graff Stavin for respondents.
Breitel and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Cooke Concur.
Cited by 13 opinions | Published
OPINION OF THE COURT
Memorandum.
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs, for the reasons stated in the memorandum at the Appellate Division. We would only add that the powers of a temporary receiver are limited to those enumerated in the appointing order. (CPLR 6401, subd [b].) Since the temporary receiver in this case was not expressly granted the power to[*971] sue for claims of the corporation arising before his appointment, that power is retained by the corporation.
Chief Judge Breitel and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Cooke concur.
Order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum. Question certified answered in the affirmative.