Summary
affirming dismissal of claim against the receiver for damage to property because “the receiver had no personal liability for the actions performed within his official capacity and within the scope of his authority pursuant to the receivership order.”
Summary of this case from In re Liquidation of U.S. Capital Ins. Co.Opinion
May 23, 1996
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Edward Lehner, J.).
Defendants-appellants' claims against the receiver for damages to buildings adjoining the subject premises, relating to damage to pipes resulting from termination and reconnection of heat and hot water services, are not supported by the record. Further, the claims were properly denied as the receiver had no personal liability for the actions performed within his official capacity and within the scope of his authority pursuant to the receivership order ( see, Copeland v. Salomon, 56 N.Y.2d 222, 231-232). There was no covenant, easement or encumbrance requiring provision of heat and hot water from the system in the subject premises to the adjoining buildings and no showing of easement by implication or prescription ( see, Abbott v. Herring, 97 A.D.2d 870, affd 62 N.Y.2d 1028), nor was the receiver given authority by the receivership order to provide such services ( see, Daro Indus. v. RAS Enters., 44 N.Y.2d 969). Finally, the IAS Court properly denied leave to sue the receiver on the ground the motion was untimely since defendants-appellants unsuccessfully made three prior motions for the same relief and expressly stipulated to waive all objections to the receiver's accounting.
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Milonas, Rubin, Tom and Mazzarelli, JJ.