In re Liggett

7 Citing cases

  1. In re Kleinman

    150 B.R. 524 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1992)   Cited 12 times

    The standards for the grant of a stay pending appeal are the same as those governing the grant of an injunction. Sandra Cotton, Inc. v. Bank of New York, 64 B.R. 262, 263 (W.D.N.Y. 1986), appeal dismissed, 87 B.R. 272 (W.D.N.Y. 1988), In re Liggett, 118 B.R. 219, 221 (Bankr.S.D.N.Y. 1990). To obtain such relief, the movant must establish (1) the strong likelihood of success on the merits of the appeal; (2) that the movant will suffer irreparable injury if the stay is denied; (3) that no substantial harm will be suffered by others if the stay is granted; and (4) what the harm to the public interest, if implicated, is. Brown's Hotel, 93 B.R. at 53; Liggett, 118 B.R. at 221.

  2. In re Advanced Min. Systems, Inc.

    173 B.R. 467 (S.D.N.Y. 1994)   Cited 30 times
    Finding irreparable injury prong met where, absent a stay of the bankruptcy court's order, the distribution of assets to creditors would moot any appeal and thus quintessentially prejudice appellants

    The standards for the grant of a stay pending appeal are the same as those governing the grant of an injunction. Sandra Cotton, Inc. v. Bank of New york, 64 B.R. 262, 263 (W.D.N.Y. 1986), appeal dismissed, 87 B.R. 272 (W.D.N.Y. 1988), In re Liggett, 118 B.R. 219, 221 (Bankr.S.D.N Y 1990). To obtain such relief, the movant must establish (1) the strong likelihood of success on the merits of the appeal; (2) that the movant will suffer irreparable injury if the state is denied; (3) that no substantial harm will be suffered by others if the stay is granted; and (4) what the harm to the public interest, if implicated, is. [ In re Charles Lillian] Brown's Hotel, 93 B.R. [49] at 53 [Bankr.S.D.N Y 1988]; Liggett, 118 B.R. at 221.

  3. In re Albert

    Case No.: 99-31520, Adv. Proc. No.: 99-7108 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Jun. 20, 2002)   Cited 26 times
    Denying motion to withdrawal where firm was "owed less than ten percent of what [had] been paid."

    The standards for the grant of a stay pending appeal are the same as those governing the grant of an injunction. Sandra Cotton, Inc. v. Bank of New York, 64 B.R. 262, 263 (Bankr.W.D.N.Y. 1986), appeal dismissed, 87 B.R. 272: (W.D.N.Y. 1988), In re Liggett, 118 B.R. 219, 221: (Bankr.S.D.N.Y. 1990). The stay pending appeal sought in this matter is discretionary.

  4. In re Turner

    207 B.R. 373 (B.A.P. 2nd Cir. 1997)   Cited 96 times
    Holding that the single estate rule prohibits any overlap at all in bankruptcy estates

    Additionally, if the Turners are correct in their assertion that the foreclosure sale was improper, they are entitled to sue Citizens for the value of their homestead exemption, assuming arguendo that any equity actually exists in the property. In re de Kleinman, 150 B.R. 524, 528 (Bankr.S.D.N.Y. 1992); In re Liggett, 118 B.R. 219, 222 (Bankr.S.D.N.Y. 1990). B. Substantial Injury to Parties if Stay is Granted

  5. In re Bijan-Sara Corp.

    203 B.R. 358 (B.A.P. 2nd Cir. 1996)   Cited 35 times
    Holding that corporate debtor would not be allowed to appear through its non-debtor principal

    Hirschfeld v. Board of Elections, 984 F.2d 35, 39 (2d Cir. 1992). See also cases holding need to show "a strong likelihood of success on the merits", Green Point Bank v. Treston, 188 B.R. 9, 11 (S.D.N.Y. 1995); In re Advanced Mining Systems, Inc., 173 B.R. 467, 468 (S.D.N.Y. 1994); In re de Kleinman, 150 B.R. 524, 528 (Bankr.S.D.N.Y. 1992); In re Sphere Holding Corp., 162 B.R. 639, 642 (E.D.N.Y. 1994); In re Liggett, 118 B.R. 219, 221 (Bankr.S.D.N.Y. 1990). The moving party must show "`satisfactory' evidence on all four criteria."

  6. In re Frankel

    192 B.R. 623 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1996)   Cited 11 times
    Concluding incarceration is the only appropriate sanction given debtor's exhibited behavior

    (4) that no harm to the public interest, if it is implicated, will be caused by granting the stay.Green Point Bank v. Treston, 188 B.R. 9, 11 (S.D.N.Y. 1995); In re Advanced Mining Systems, Inc., 173 B.R. 467, 468 (S.D.N.Y. 1994); In re de Kleinman, 150 B.R. 524, 528 (Bankr.S.D.N.Y. 1992); In re Sphere Holding Corp., 162 B.R. 639, 642 (E.D.N.Y. 1994); In re Liggett, 118 B.R. 219, 221 (Bankr.S.D.N.Y. 1990). The moving party must show "`satisfactory' evidence on all four criteria."

  7. In re Issa Corp.

    142 B.R. 75 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1992)   Cited 17 times
    Recognizing that where debtor-restauranteur stands to be evicted from the premises, and thereby lose its restaurant, the debtor will "[i]ndisputably" suffer irreparable harm

    In order to obtain a stay pending appeal under Rule 8005, the movant must establish (1) a strong likelihood of success on the merits of the appeal; (2) that the movant will suffer irreparable injury if the stay is denied; (3) that substantial harm will not be suffered by other parties if the stay is granted; and (4) that issuance of the stay would not involve harm to the public interest. In re Charles Lillian Brown's Hotel, Inc., 93 B.R. 49, 53 (Bankr.S.D.N.Y. 1988); In re Liggett, 118 B.R. 219, 221 (Bankr.S.D.N.Y. 1990); In re Fosko Markets, 74 B.R. 384, 390 (Bankr.S.D.N.Y. 1987). To prevail, the debtor must satisfy all four requirements before the stay will be granted.