ESTATE OF MAX SAKOW, Deceased In this estate that has been in litigation for decades, now that there has been distribution among the decedent’s three children of the last seven parcels of realty in the estate, the temporary receiver (receiver), who was appointed pursuant to an order dated February 1, 2000, moves for an order judicially settling his account, awarding $15,000 to his counsel and $5,000 to his accounting firm in additional fees, allowing payment of a $1,484 bill for boiler repairs, and upon payment of the foregoing charges, terminating the receivership and discharging the surety on the receiver’s bond. In 2006 while he was still managing seven parcels of realty the receiver filed an account for the period from March 1, 2000 to August 30, 2006. Since that time, he sent the court and the parties monthly statements and, in support of his instant motion, he submits as an update to his account a "Statement of Receipts and Expenditures Mar. 1, 2000-May 31, 2010," which consists of unsegregated statements of income and expenses. In response to the receiver’s motion, the decedent’s daughters (the daughters) first filed a cross motion which, shortly thereafter, was replaced with an amended cross motion and a separate motion for relief against their brother Walter and his wife Marion Schainberg (Schainberg). As a result of conveyances by Walter or entities he controlled, Schainberg was the record owner of most of the Bronx properties and was a party in the proceeding to settle Walter’s account. Although Schainberg was also served with process in the receiver’s accounting proceeding in 2006, she did not appear in that proceeding and she was not served with notice of the daughters’ motion for relief against her and Walter.
In their amended cross motion, the daughters seek an order/judgment: (1) declaring that the three properties transferred to them by the receiver were transferred free and clear of all liens and encumbrances nunc pro tunc to the date of the transfer; (2) specifically discharging a mortgage on the Tiemann Avenue parcel; (3) surcharging the receiver for rental security deposits that he failed to turn over to them; and, (4) such other and further relief as the court "deems just and proper." Additionally, the affirmation in support of the cross motion opposes the legal and accounting fees sought by the receiver based on a May 18, 2008 stipulation between the daughters and the receiver.
