J.D. Realty Associates v. Jorrin, 166 Misc. 2d 175 (1995)
- Citation
- J.D. Realty Associates v. Jorrin, 166 Misc. 2d 175 (1995)
- Parent Document
- J.D. Realty Associates v. Jorrin, 166 Misc. 2d 175 (1995)
- Jurisdiction
- New York (state)
- Effective Date
- 1995-09-12
Other Sections in This Document (22)
- J.D. Realty Associates v. Jorrin, 166 Misc. 2d 175 (1995)
- J.D. Realty Associates v. Jorrin, 166 Misc. 2d 175 (1995)
- J.D. Realty Associates v. Jorrin, 166 Misc. 2d 175 (1995)
- J.D. Realty Associates v. Jorrin, 166 Misc. 2d 175 (1995)
- J.D. Realty Associates v. Jorrin, 166 Misc. 2d 175 (1995)
- J.D. Realty Associates v. Jorrin, 166 Misc. 2d 175 (1995)
- J.D. Realty Associates v. Jorrin, 166 Misc. 2d 175 (1995)
- J.D. Realty Associates v. Jorrin, 166 Misc. 2d 175 (1995)
- J.D. Realty Associates v. Jorrin, 166 Misc. 2d 175 (1995)
- J.D. Realty Associates v. Jorrin, 166 Misc. 2d 175 (1995)
- J.D. Realty Associates v. Jorrin, 166 Misc. 2d 175 (1995)
- J.D. Realty Associates v. Jorrin, 166 Misc. 2d 175 (1995)
- J.D. Realty Associates v. Jorrin, 166 Misc. 2d 175 (1995)
- J.D. Realty Associates v. Jorrin, 166 Misc. 2d 175 (1995)
- J.D. Realty Associates v. Jorrin, 166 Misc. 2d 175 (1995)
- J.D. Realty Associates v. Jorrin, 166 Misc. 2d 175 (1995)
- J.D. Realty Associates v. Jorrin, 166 Misc. 2d 175 (1995)
- J.D. Realty Associates v. Jorrin, 166 Misc. 2d 175 (1995)
- J.D. Realty Associates v. Jorrin, 166 Misc. 2d 175 (1995)
- J.D. Realty Associates v. Jorrin, 166 Misc. 2d 175 (1995)
- J.D. Realty Associates v. Jorrin, 166 Misc. 2d 175 (1995)
- J.D. Realty Associates v. Jorrin, 166 Misc. 2d 175 (1995)
Full Text
697 charsPetitioner became the owner of the subject building in November 1994. The prior owner, North Jersey Trading Corp., defaulted on mortgage obligations. During a 1991 foreclosure *177proceeding, the court appointed a receiver. Thereafter, in 1993, North Jersey filed a petition in bankruptcy and the Bankruptcy Court appointed a trustee. The building was sold to another entity in 1994, which then sold it to petitioner. By a separate but related transaction, petitioner apparently acquired an assignment of past due rents, but the assignment did not specify what, if anything, was in fact due from each tenant. Petitioner contends that it received only incomplete rent records from its predecessors.