Citation Numbers: 114 Misc. 2d 472
Judges: Buschmann
Filed Date: 6/18/1982
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 2/5/2022
OPINION OF THE COURT
In this mortgage foreclosure action the receiver moves to authorize and direct him to retain counsel and an accountant.
A motion seeking the removal of the receiver and requesting that the receiver account and be surcharged was made on February 5, 1982. On the return date of that motion, March 18, 1982, Mr. Justice Hyman apparently directed the receiver to move for the relief sought in the instant motion which was brought on by order to show cause dated March 22, 1982. On March 26, 1982 an order was entered on the motion to remove the receiver granting it to the extent of directing the receiver to file an interim account. The accounting was filed on April 1, 1982. Inasmuch as the services of the accountant were rendered after the date of the instant order to show cause, the motion to employ the accountant is granted and its fees are fixed in the sum of $794.
The question of the counsel fees presents a different problem. A substantial portion of the services rendered by the attorney for the receiver was rendered prior to the instant order to show cause and in connection with the motion to remove and surcharge. To this extent what is sought is a ratification of the act of the receiver employing an attorney without prior authorization..
An older line of cases including Niagara Life Ins. Co. v Lincoln Mtge. Co. (175 App Div 415, 416) cited by defendant held that the court “in the exercise of a wise discretion”
In their treatise Weinstein, Korn and Miller pose the question whether by omitting the final sentence of the predecessor sections “a court is now permitted to ratify a receiver’s unauthorized employment of counsel and to allow the payment of legal fees.” (7A Weinstein-Korn-Miller, NY Civ Prac, par 6401.20.) Apparently, the advisory committee’s notes are silent. In Land v Esrig (43 NYS2d 623) decided in 1943 the court allowed reasonable counsel fees although no prior authorization for the employment of counsel was sought, stating (p 626): “Observance of the
This court is of the opinion that it has the power to ratify the unauthorized engagement of counsel under exigent circumstances. Such circumstances exist here. The motion is granted employing counsel. The rate of compensation and the fees for services rendered to the date of this decision will be fixed in the order to be entered hereon. The attorney for the receiver, Wallace Leinheardt, Esq., is directed upon settlement of the order to file simultaneously with the court and serve upon all parties entitled thereto a supplemental affidavit stating the work performed to date, delineating the time spent on each matter.