Peters v. Peters

Decision Date02 February 1987
Citation511 N.Y.S.2d 374,127 A.D.2d 575
PartiesVirginia PETERS, Respondent, v. Michael PETERS, Appellant.
CourtNew York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Silbowitz, Bleier & Bleier, Jamaica (Albert E. Silbowitz, of counsel), for appellant.

Dikman, Dikman and Botter, Jamaica (Michael Dikman, of counsel), for respondent.

Before NIEHOFF, J.P., and RUBIN, LAWRENCE and SULLIVAN, JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.

In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant husband appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Calabretta, J.), dated July 16, 1985, as, upon reargument, adhered to its original determination appointing a temporary receiver for the defendant's corporations.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

Although the appointment of a temporary receiver is a drastic remedy which should not be lightly granted, the record contains sufficient evidence to support such an appointment in this case (CPLR 6401[a]; Hildenbiddle v. Hildenbiddle, 110 A.D.2d 819, 488 N.Y.S.2d 74; Nelson v. Nelson, 99 A.D.2d 917, 473 N.Y.S.2d 40). The corporations are owned by the defendant husband; however, the plaintiff wife claimed that she had a substantial interest in them as they were acquired after their marriage and had increased significantly in value during the period she worked with the defendant in the businesses. Given the defendant's well-documented alcoholism, his erratic and assaultive behavior both outside and in the businesses, his refusal to comply with court orders of support, and his threat to sell the businesses and leave the country with the infant children, the trial court's order constituted an appropriate exercise of discretion (see, Hildenbiddle v. Hildenbiddle, supra; Nelson v. Nelson, supra ).

We have considered the parties' remaining contentions and find them to be without merit.

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Adinolfi v. Adinolfi
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • 3 December 1990
    ...recognizing that the appointment of a temporary receiver is a drastic remedy that should not be lightly granted (see, Peters v. Peters, 127 A.D.2d 575, 511 N.Y.S.2d 374; Hildenbiddle v. Hildenbiddle, 110 A.D.2d 819, 488 N.Y.S.2d 74), we conclude that the defendant satisfied her burden of ma......
  • Polito v. Polito
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • 3 December 1990
    ...however, that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that appointment of a receiver is warranted (see, CPLR 6401; cf., Peters v. Peters, 127 A.D.2d 575, 511 N.Y.S.2d 374; Hildenbiddle v. Hildenbiddle, 110 A.D.2d 819, 488 N.Y.S.2d Inasmuch as the parties' younger daughter is now over the age of......
  • Rogers v. Rogers
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • 8 February 1993
    ...this remedy is necessary and appropriate (see, Brennan v. Brennan, 109 A.D.2d 960, 961, 486 N.Y.S.2d 452; see also, Peters v. Peters, 127 A.D.2d 575, 511 N.Y.S.2d 374; Hildenbiddle v. Hildenbiddle, 110 A.D.2d 819, 488 N.Y.S.2d 74). The appointment of a receiver is proper where the payor has......
  • Booth v. Ling–Shan Li
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court
    • 9 July 2012
    ...judgment creditor had an interest. ( see Catrone v. Catrone (92 A.D.2d 559, 459 N.Y.S.2d 306 [2 Dept.1983] ); Peters v. Peters (127 A.D.2d 575, 511 N.Y.S.2d 374 [2 Dept.1987] ). In the case at bar, the defendant, Ling–Shan Li, has shown a lack of credibility and candor when testifying about......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT