Opinion
June 29, 1993
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Myriam, J. Altman, J.).
To the extent respondents' challenge to the receivership is an effort to relitigate their claims for unjust enrichment and unlawful eviction, such arguments are barred by the doctrine of res judicata (Eidelberg v. Zellermayer, 5 A.D.2d 658, 663, affd 6 N.Y.2d 815). Further, the Supreme Court properly exercised its equitable powers to appoint the receiver to operate the nursing home (People v. Abbott Manor Nursing Home, 70 A.D.2d 434, 438, affd 52 N.Y.2d 766). Whether to appoint a receiver is a matter confined to the "sound discretion of the court" (Handman v Madonick, 235 App. Div. 47, 49), and the appointment of Jeffrey Frerichs as sole receiver was appropriate in the circumstances herein. Finally, the powers and duties of the receiver appointed pursuant to the court's equity powers are formulated as a matter of judicial discretion (7A Weinstein-Korn-Miller, N.Y. Civ Prac ¶ 6401.16), and the court "is vested with inherent plenary power (NY Const, art VI, § 7) to fashion any remedy necessary for the proper administration of justice" (People ex rel. Doe v Beaudoin, 102 A.D.2d 359, 363). Here, the court properly exercised its discretion in formulating and addressing the relevant receivership issues in order to protect the interest of the parties and the nursing home residents.
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Carro, Wallach and Nardelli, JJ.