General
1995 Birchall Avenue LLC, Appellant, v. Lekhram Boodhoo et al., Respondents, et al., Defendants
128 A.D.3d 5047 N.Y.S.3d 897·New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division·2015·NY
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
1995 Birchall Avenue LLC, Appellant, v Lekhram Boodhoo et al., Respondents, et al., Defendants.
[7 NYS3d 897]
[MAJORITY]
Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Kenneth L. Thompson, Jr., J.), entered on or about August 14, 2014, which, inter alia, denied plaintiffs motion seeking the appointment of a temporary receiver, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The court properly denied plaintiffs motion for the appointment of a temporary receiver pursuant to CPLR 6401. Plaintiff failed to make a clear evidentiary showing warranting the drastic remedy of appointment of a receiver (see Moran v Moran, 77 AD3d 443, 445 [1st Dept 2010]). Plaintiffs argument that it was it was not required to make the showing of necessity mandated by CPLR 6401 (a) because the mortgage should be construed under Real Property Law § 254 (10) to authorize the appointment of a receiver, was not properly raised below (see Dannasch v Bifulco, 184 AD2d 415, 417 [1st Dept 1992]). Concur — Friedman, J.P., Saxe, Richter and ManzanetDaniels, JJ.