From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Emblem v. Juras

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jul 1, 1985
112 A.D.2d 134 (N.Y. App. Div. 1985)

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.


Summaries of

Emblem v. Juras

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jul 1, 1985
112 A.D.2d 134 (N.Y. App. Div. 1985)
Case details for

Emblem v. Juras

Case Details

Full title:BARBARA J. EMBLEM et al., Appellants, v. SUSAN H. JURAS, Respondent

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

Date published: Jul 1, 1985

Citations

112 A.D.2d 134 (N.Y. App. Div. 1985)

Citing Cases

HSBC Bank U.S. v. Rubin

Courts use "extreme caution" in appointing temporary receivers, because doing so is an imposition upon the…

Tedesco v. Tedesco

B. Receiver: Relying upon his same claims of ownership, Riccardo Sr. moves for the appointment of a temporary…