From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Oliva v. Lucero

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Feb 9, 1995
212 A.D.2d 407 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)

Opinion

February 9, 1995

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Edward Greenfield, J.).


Although plaintiff offered only law office failure as an excuse for failure to obey the IAS Court's directive to settle an order within 60 days ( 22 NYCRR 202.48), plaintiff showed that a temporary receiver is justified because the parties are "antagonists [who] threaten the wellbeing and continued viability of [the entity]" (Modern Telecommunications v. Dalessandro, 185 A.D.2d 218, 224), and we therefore find that a compelling policy, a concern for the wellbeing of the subject building and its tenants, justifies permitting the late settlement of the order (see, Russo v. City of New York, 206 A.D.2d 355).

Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Wallach, Rubin, Ross and Tom, JJ.


Summaries of

Oliva v. Lucero

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Feb 9, 1995
212 A.D.2d 407 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
Case details for

Oliva v. Lucero

Case Details

Full title:EVA C. OLIVA, Respondent, v. TOMAS LUCERO et al., Appellants

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Feb 9, 1995

Citations

212 A.D.2d 407 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
623 N.Y.S.2d 107

Citing Cases

Matter, Parkway Plaza v. Asr. of Canandaigua

The court properly found that good cause exists for signing the order despite respondent's delay in…

Matter of Farrell v. Johnson

Memorandum: Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion in allowing petitioners to submit a proposed order two…