Chemical Bank v. Evans & Hughes Realty, L.P.
Opinion of the Court
In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the appeal is from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Levitt, J.), entered March 6, 1992, which denied the application of the temporary receiver for an order compelling the defendant Evans & Hughes Realty, L.P., to return rent it collected from a tenant, Plain & Fancy Shows of Westbury, Inc., for November 1991.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The lease at bar thus expressly provides that rent is payable "in advance” of the month for which the rent is due—i.e., on the first day of that month (see, Giles v Comstock, 4 NY 270). Since the lease was assigned pursuant to the Indenture, the two documents must be reviewed together (see, BWA Corp. v Alltrans Express U.S.A., 112 AD2d 850, 852), and "[t]hat interpretation is favored which will make every part of a contract effective” (Fleischman v Furgueson, 223 NY 235, 239; see also, Rentaways, Inc. v O’Neill Milk & Cream Co., 308 NY 342, 347). When the lease provision requiring first-of-the-month payment is considered in conjunction with Section 6.6 (B) of the Indenture, it is clear that the Evans & Hughes was entitled to demand November’s rent of Plain & Fancy as early as October 1, 1991.
Moreover, by the terms of the Indenture governing the assignment of Plain & Fancy’s lease, Evans & Hughes retained the right to collect its rents until Chemical Bank had affirmatively revoked its license to do so following a default, or until a receiver was appointed (see, New York Life Ins. Co. v Fulton Dev. Corp., 265 NY 348, 352; Gomez v Bobker, 124 AD2d 703; 1180 Anderson Ave. Realty Corp. v Mina Equities Corp., 95 AD2d 169, 173-174). Although Chemical Bank declared Evans & Hughes in default on September 16, 1991, it did not revoke the latter’s right to collect rents. The receiver was not appointed until October 7th, some three days after
Finally, it cannot be concluded from this record that the advance collection of rent by Evans & Hughes was fraudulent or motivated by the anticipation of foreclosure and the appointment of a receiver (see, Rider v Bagley, 84 NY 461; Argall v Pitts, 78 NY 239; Manufacturers’ Trust Co. v Sadenet Realty, supra; cf., 570 Kosciusko Realty Corp. v Kingdale Estates, 256 App Div 997). Sullivan, J. P., Balletta, Joy and Friedmann, JJ., concur.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.