Summary
reversing lower court's appointment of a temporary receiver where "plaintiff failed to offer any nonspeculative allegations or evidence indicating that the defendants were committing waste or that there was a danger that the subject recreational facilities would be dissipated or lost absent the appointment of a temporary receiver."
Summary of this case from Hakak v. AllahamOpinion
2012-11-14
BOARD OF MANAGERS OF NOB HILL CONDOMINIUM SECTION II, respondent, v. BOARD OF MANAGERS OF NOB HILL CONDOMINIUM SECTION I, et al., appellants.
Bracken Margolin Besunder LLP, Islandia, N.Y. (Linda U. Margolin and Kristen L. Ryan of counsel), for appellants. Ruskin Moscou Faltischek P.C., Uniondale, N.Y. (Adam L. Browser of counsel), for respondent.
Bracken Margolin Besunder LLP, Islandia, N.Y. (Linda U. Margolin and Kristen L. Ryan of counsel), for appellants. Ruskin Moscou Faltischek P.C., Uniondale, N.Y. (Adam L. Browser of counsel), for respondent.
RANDALL T. ENG, P.J., MARK C. DILLON, PLUMMER E. LOTT, and JEFFREY A. COHEN, JJ.
In an action, inter alia, for specific performance and to recover damages for breach of contract, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Pitts, J.), dated October 4, 2011, which granted that branch of the plaintiff's motion which was pursuant to CPLR 6401 for the appointment of a temporary receiver to, among other things, operate and maintain certain recreational facilities.
ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, with costs, and that branch of the plaintiff's motion which was pursuant to CPLR 6401 for the appointment of a temporary receiver to, among other things, operate and maintain certain recreational facilities is denied.
A party moving for the appointment of a temporary receiver must submit “clear and convincing evidence of irreparable loss or waste to the subject property and that a temporary receiver is needed to protect their interests” ( Natoli v. Milazzo, 65 A.D.3d 1309, 1310, 886 N.Y.S.2d 205;seeCPLR 6401[a]; Vardaris Tech, Inc. v. Paleros Inc., 49 A.D.3d 631, 853 N.Y.S.2d 601;Singh v. Brunswick Hosp. Ctr., 2 A.D.3d 433, 767 N.Y.S.2d 839;Matter of Armienti & Brooks, 309 A.D.2d 659, 767 N.Y.S.2d 2;Schachner v. Sikowitz, 94 A.D.2d 709, 462 N.Y.S.2d 49). Here, the plaintiff failed to offer any nonspeculative allegations or evidence indicating that the defendants were committing waste or that there was a danger that the subject recreational facilities would be dissipated or lost absent the appointment of a temporary receiver. Accordingly, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in granting that branch of the plaintiff's motion which was pursuant to CPLR 6401 for the appointment of a temporary receiver to, among other things, operate and maintain the recreational facilities.