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.
VARDARIS TECH, INC., respondent, v. PALEROS INC. d/b/a Grand Café, appellant (and another title).
In an action to recover damages for breach of contract, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (O'Donoghue, J.), dated April 30, 2007, which granted the plaintiff's motion pursuant to CPLR 6401 for the appointment of a temporary receiver for its business and assets.
ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, with costs, and the plaintiff's motion pursuant to CPLR 6401 for the appointment of a temporary receiver for the defendant's business and assets is denied.
The Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in granting the plaintiff's motion pursuant to CPLR 6401 for the appointment of a temporary receiver of the business and assets of the defendant corporation. “The appointment of a temporary receiver is an extreme remedy resulting in the taking and withholding of possession of property from a party without an adjudication on the merits” (Schachner v. Sikowitz, 94 A.D.2d 709, 709, 462 N.Y.S.2d 49). Therefore, a motion seeking such appointment “should be granted only where the moving party has made a clear evidentiary showing of the necessity for the conservation of the property at issue and the need to protect the moving party's interests” (Lee v. 183 Port Richmond Ave. Realty, 303 A.D.2d 379, 380, 755 N.Y.S.2d 664; see Secured Capital Corp. of N.Y. v. Dansker, 263 A.D.2d 503, 504, 694 N.Y.S.2d 409; DaSilva v. DaSilva, 225 A.D.2d 513, 638 N.Y.S.2d 771).
Here, the unsupported allegations and accusations set forth by the plaintiff fell far short of the required “clear evidentiary showing that property of the corporation was in danger of being ‘removed from the state, or lost, materially injured or destroyed’ ” (Lee v. 183 Port Richmond Ave. Realty, 303 A.D.2d at 380, 755 N.Y.S.2d 664, quoting CPLR 6401[a]; see Iannone v. Iannone, 31 A.D.3d 713, 715, 820 N.Y.S.2d 86; Matter of Kristensen v. Charleston Sq., 273 A.D.2d 312, 709 N.Y.S.2d 853; cf. Friedman v. Ragin, 228 A.D.2d 642, 645 N.Y.S.2d 56).
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 11, 2008
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second 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)