Opinion
21-CV-05654 (PMH)
09-13-2021
In re MOSDOS CHOFETZ CHAIM INC., Debtor. v. MOSDOS CHOFETZ CHAIM INC., CHOFETZCHAIM INC., TBG RADIN LLC, SHEM OLAM, LLC, CONGREGATION RADIN DEVELOPMENT INC., ARYEH ZAKS, BEATRICE WALDMAN ZAKS, MENDEL ZAKS, GITTEL ZAKS LAYOSH, ELIYAHU LAYOSH, SAMUEL MARKOWITZ, DEBORAH ZAKS HILLMAN, YOM T. HENIG, STEVEN GREEN, DANIEL GREEN, ABRAHAM ZAKS, and STERLING NATIONAL BANK, Defendants. CONGREGANTS OF MOSDOS CHOFETZ CHAIM INC. a/k/a KIRYAS RADIN
ORDER
PHILIP M. HALPERN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
On September 10, 2021, Appellant filed a letter-motion requesting that the Court “hold an immediate conference at which” he could “request an emergency stay permitting [him] to preside and lead his congregation in services on the high Holy Day of Yom Kippur . . . and the following holy days of Simchat Torah and Succoth . . . .” (Doc. 20 at 1). Appellant, in his letter-motion, requests specifically for the Court to stay (1) the Injunction Order, (2) Contempt Order, and (3) Enforcement Order issued by Judge Drain in Adversary Proceeding No. 21-7023. (Id. at 3). That request is DENIED for the following reasons.
Judge Drain issued an Injunction Order on May 24, 2021. (Adv. Proc. No. 21-7023, Doc. 22). He issued a modified Order on May 25, 2021. (Id., Doc. 24). Appellant appeals from both orders in this action.
On June 15, 2021, Judge Drain granted a motion for contempt of the May 25, 2021 Order against Appellant and others. (Adv. Proc. No. 21-7023, Doc. 54).
On September 8, 2021, Judge Drain denied without prejudice a motion to enforce the Contempt Order. (Adv. Proc. No. 21-7023, Doc. 122).
First, Appellant's application for stays of the Injunction and Contempt Orders have previously been denied. (In re: Mosdos Chofetz Chaim Inc., No. 21-CV-02878, Apr. 13, 2021 Min. Entry; see id., Doc. 46). He presents no new factual allegations to warrant a different result here.
Second, with respect to the Enforcement Order, the Order sought by Appellant would serve no purpose because a stay of that Enforcement Order would not achieve the practical relief that he seeks.
Accordingly, Appellant's request for an “immediate conference” to “request an emergency stay” is DENIED. (Doc. 20 at 1).
SO ORDERED.