New York Court of Appeals, 1969

Kane Associates v. Blumenson

New York Court of Appeals · Decided February 19, 1969 · Jasen, Keating

23 N.Y.2d 942; 246 N.E.2d 527; 298 N.Y.S.2d 724; 1969 N.Y. LEXIS 1556

Cases that cite this one

6 later published cases cite this decision.

Chase Manhattan Bank v. Brown & East Ridge Partners (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1998)
Federal Deposit Insurance v. 7 Bros. Construction Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1997)
Ronbarst Realty Corp. v. Boardwalk Owners Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1991)
Enak Realty Corp. v. City of New York (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1985)
A. F. & G. Realty Corp. v. State (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1977)
Genuth v. First Division Avenue Realty Corp. (New York Supreme Court 1976)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

Order affirmed, without costs, on the opinion at the Appellate Division. Question certified answered in the affirmative.

Concur: Chief Judge Fuld and Judges Burke, Soileppi, Bergan and Bkeitel. Judges Keating and Jasen dissent and vote to reverse and to reinstate the order of Special Term in the following memorandum.

Dissenting Opinion

Keating and Jasen, JJ. (dissenting).

Under settled law, a receiver in foreclosure is entitled to all rents, including those due but unpaid at the time of his appointment, which have not been reduced to the possession of the landlord at the time the receiver qualifies. (New York Life Ins. Co. v. Fulton Development Corp., 265 N. Y. 348; Rider v. Bagley, 84 N. Y. 461.) The facts of this case bring it squarely within this rule.

The rents were deposited into court, pursuant to stipulation, pending the outcome of a proceeding brought under article 7-A of the Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law. The court, however, was not the landlord’s agent and, until the clerk was *944directed by order of the court to turn the money over, the landlord had no possession, actual or constructive, of the funds deposited. The receiver, having been appointed and having qualified prior to the time the landlord obtained possession of the moneys, was entitled to have them applied toward the payment of the mortgage debt and maintenance and repair of the property.

Order affirmed, etc.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.