Opinion
July 1, 1985
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Kelly, J.).
Order affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
Appointment of a temporary receiver is an extreme remedy and should not be lightly granted ( Nelson v. Nelson, 99 A.D.2d 917). Since the defendant did not willfully refuse to comply with the March 1983 settlement stipulation and the delay in complying was occasioned by the proposed mortgagee selected by both parties, the court's extension of the time for compliance with the stipulation was an appropriate remedy and not an abuse of discretion.
Plaintiffs' claim for rescission of the settlement stipulation on the grounds of unilateral mistake and unjust enrichment is not properly before us, having been raised for the first time on appeal. Lazer, J.P., Mangano, Gibbons and Niehoff, JJ., concur.