Nelson v. Nelson
| Decision Date | 23 February 1984 |
| Citation | 473 N.Y.S.2d 40,99 A.D.2d 917 |
| Parties | Deborah H. NELSON, Respondent, v. Bruce E. NELSON, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Shanley & Shanley, Troy (Donald J. Shanley, Troy, of counsel), for appellant.
McNamee, Lochner, Titus & Williams, P.C., Albany (Peter A. Pastore, Albany, of counsel), for respondent.
Before KANE, J.P., and MAIN, YESAWICH, WEISS and HARVEY, JJ.
Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court at Special Term, entered May 19, 1983 in Warren County, as modified by an order of said court, entered May 25, 1983 in Warren County, which granted plaintiff's motion for the appointment of a receiver.
The underlying action is for an accounting of business property known as the "Lone Bull Restaurant" situated in the Town of Lake George, Warren County, and jointly owned by the parties, who are husband and wife. Within the context of a divorce action commenced in March, 1982, the parties were granted the right to jointly operate and manage the marital business for the 1982 season. In this action, plaintiff alleges that despite the joint management order, defendant controlled the business during 1982 and yet failed to account or distribute any business profits, claiming that all the records had been stolen. By order entered May 19, 1983, plaintiff's motion for the appointment of a receiver pendente lite to manage the financial aspects of the restaurant was granted. * On appeal, defendant asserts that Special Term abused its discretion in appointing a temporary receiver on the basis of the parties' conflicting affidavits without, at the very least, conducting a full evidentiary hearing. We disagree.
Although appointment of a temporary receiver is an extreme remedy which should not lightly be granted, particularly where a going business is involved, we are of the view that plaintiff has satisfied the requirements of CPLR 6401 (subd. [a] ) and is entitled to such relief (see Gimbel v. Reibman, 78 A.D.2d 897, 433 N.Y.S.2d 217). Upon reviewing the papers before Special Term (see 13 Carmody-Wait 2d, N.Y.Prac., § 83.19, p. 19), it becomes clear that the instant action is more than one to recover profits due, and involves a specific subject matter at its core, i.e., the restaurant. Next, plaintiff's "apparent interest" in the restaurant is easily established by documentary evidence of ownership. Finally, defendant's opposing papers fail to controvert the allegation that an accounting...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cellino v. Cellino & Barnes, P.C.
...abuse its discretion in appointing a temporary receiver (see generally Greer , 124 A.D.2d at 708, 508 N.Y.S.2d 217 ; Nelson v. Nelson , 99 A.D.2d 917, 918, 473 N.Y.S.2d 40 [3d Dept. 1984] ) for the limited purposes of "oversee[ing] the separation of the LC and the PC; ... assess[ing] the ap......
-
Hildenbiddle v. Hildenbiddle
...... an extreme remedy, which should not be lightly granted, the record contains sufficient evidence to support such an appointment (CPLR 6401[a]; Nelson v. Nelson, 99 A.D.2d 917, 473 N.Y.S.2d 40; Meurer v. Meurer, 21 A.D.2d 778, 250 N.Y.S.2d 817; Allen v. Allen, 36 Misc.2d 1089, 234 N.Y.S.2d 392). ......
-
Levine v. Bess Eaton Donut Flour Co., Inc.
......, 587 N.Y.S.2d 315, 318-19 (1992) (deeming receiver appropriate because actions threatened well-being and continued viability of corporation); Nelson v. Nelson, 99 A.D.2d 917, 473 N.Y.S.2d 40, 41 (1984) (finding appointment of receiver necessary for conservation of corporate property and ......
-
Beatty v. Williams
...Plaintiff met his burden of demonstrating that he has an "apparent interest" in the property (CPLR 6401[a]; see, Nelson v. Nelson, 99 A.D.2d 917, 473 N.Y.S.2d 40) and establishing by clear and convincing evidence that there was a likelihood "of irreparable loss or damage" if a receiver were......