Daro Industries, Inc. v. RAS Enterprises, Inc.
Cases that cite this one
13 later published cases cite this decision.
- Security Pacific Mortgage And Real Estate Services, Inc. v. The Republic Of The Philippines (2d Cir. 1992)
- Security Pacific Mortgage & Real Estate Services, Inc. v. Republic of the Philippines (2d Cir. 1992)
- Dowling v. Stapley (Ariz. Ct. App. 2009)
- In re Koula Enterprises, Ltd. (United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. New York 1996)
- JY Citizen L.P. v. 333 E. 150 St. Realty LLC (New York Supreme Court, Bronx County 2025)
- JY Citizen L.P. v. 333 E. 150 St. Realty LLC (New York Supreme Court, Bronx County 2025)
- Wells Fargo Bank, Natl. Assn. v. Bronx 1202 Spofford Ave. L.P. (New York Supreme Court, Bronx County 2025)
- Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Bronx 1202 Spofford Ave. L.P. (New York Supreme Court, Bronx County 2025)
- Levine v. B and R Acquisition Partners, LLC and JHM Lending Ventures, LLC (District Court, N.D. New York 2024)
- Community Preservation Corp. v. City Terrace Associates Ltd. Partnership (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2002)
- Jacynicz v. 73 Seaman Associates (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2000)
- Bankers Federal Savings FSB v. Off West Broadway Developers (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1996)
- Liker v. Grossman (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1991)
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
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.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.