Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Martin DOMANSKY, etc., et al., Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. Alexander BERKOVITCH, et al., Defendants-Appellants, 510 Universal Builders, Ltd., et al., Defendants, Saul Rudes, etc., et al., Defendants-Respondents.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Gammerman, J.), entered April 1, 1997, in favor of the temporary receiver and against defendants-appellants in the amounts of $354,687.32 and $260,579.88, and order, same court and Justice, entered July 20, 1998, which denied defendants-appellants' motion to vacate such judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Defendants did not appeal from the November 26, 1996 order directing them to pay the above amounts to the court-appointed receiver, and, since the judgment from which they appeal is nonfinal, such order is not brought up for review by the appeal from such judgment (CPLR 5501[a][1] ). Thus, we limit review to the judgment and the order denying defendants' motion to vacate the judgment, from which defendants have appealed.
The court properly granted the receiver's motion to convert the November 26, 1996 order into a money judgment against defendants, such remedy being necessary to the accomplishment of the directives set forth in the order of appointment, and also serving to protect and preserve the subject construction projects during the pendency of the action. “[T]he powers and duties of the receiver appointed pursuant to the court's equity powers are formulated as a matter of judicial discretion and the court ‘is vested with inherent plenary power to fashion any remedy necessary for the proper administration of justice.’ ” (64 B Venture v. American Realty Co., 194 A.D.2d 504, 599 N.Y.S.2d 567 [citations omitted] ). Defendants' motion to vacate the judgment was properly denied upon findings that although the buildings were operating, they had outstanding liabilities that the receiver could satisfy only by resort to the rent money, and that the individual defendant had overpaid his construction company, the corporate defendant, despite the existence of such liabilities. We have considered defendants' other claims and find them to be unpersuasive.
MEMORANDUM DECISION.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: March 16, 1999
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)