Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

145 Misc. 749

Pignolone v. Martino

New York Supreme Court

Decided August 18, 1932

New York Supreme Court · decided 1932-08-18

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently January 1967

1 state decisions

Relies on Jefferson County National Bank v. . Dewey

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1932-08-18

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Cupp, J.

¶1This mortgage contains this clause: “ That the holder of this mortgage in any action to foreclose it shall be entitled to the appointment of a receiver.” Subdivision 10 of section 254 of the Real Property Law (as added by Laws of 1930, chap. 166) interprets that clause as meaning that a receiver may be appointed “ without notice and without regard to adequacy of any security of the debt.” It will be noted that the mortgage clause is silent on notice and adequacy of security. Section 975 of the Civil Practice Act requires that notice be given before a receiver may be appointed in foreclosure, unless the mortgage by its terms waives notice. This receiver was appointed ex parte on June 27, 1932. The provision in the Real Property Law construing the clause contained in this mortgage became a law September 1, 1930.

¶2*750The mortgage was executed October 1, 1929, and matures September 30, 1932. The Real Property Law says nothing about its being retroactive. The only law in effect at the time the contract was made was section 975 of the Civil Practice Act, which required notice unless it was specifically waived. An amendment not in effect when a contract is made and not by law made retroactive cannot be read into that contract (Jefferson County National Bank v. Dewey, 181 N. Y. 98, 108) when construing it.

¶3Notice should have been given. Motion granted.

/145/misc/749 · .json · Public domain