Serdaroglu v. Serdaroglu
| Decision Date | 21 November 1994 |
| Docket Number | No. 2,No. 1,No. 3,1,2,3 |
| Citation | 622 N.Y.S.2d 51,209 A.D.2d 606 |
| Parties | Mustafa SERDAROGLU, Appellant, v. Sandra SERDAROGLU, Respondent. (Action). Silvio POLLERO, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Mustafa SERDAROGLU, Appellant, et al., Defendants. (Action). Silvio POLLERO, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Mustafa SERDAROGLU, et al., Appellants, Sandra Serdaroglu, Respondent. (Action). |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Liddle, O'Connor, Finkelstein & Shoemaker, New York City (Scheinkman & Kaplan, White Plains, Alan D. Scheinkman, Miriam M. Robinson, and Linda Danovitch, of counsel), for appellant Mustafa Serdaroglu.
Scher & Eliasberg, P.C., Great Neck (Robert A. Scher and Daniel J. Scher on the brief), for appellants Turgay Kadioglu, Irem Kadioglu, and Boulevard Management, Inc.
Barton R. Resnicoff, Great Neck (Kim M. Ciesinski on the brief), for respondent.
Sawyer, Davis, Halpern & Rosenstock, Garden City (Adam C. Demetri, of counsel), for Silvio and Jean Pollero.
Before BRACKEN, J.P., and COPERTINO, JOY and ALTMAN, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief (Action No. 1) and in related actions by the parents of the defendant in Action No. 1, inter alia, to enforce alleged oral subscription agreements and to compel the issuance to them of shares of stock in Serdar Service Station, Inc. (Action No. 2) and Boulevard Management, Inc. (Action No. 3), Mustafa Serdaroglu, the plaintiff in Action No. 1 and a defendant in Actions Nos. 2 and 3, appeals (1) as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (DiNoto, J.), dated October 17, 1991, as granted Sandra Serdaroglu's motion in Action No. 1 for an order staying him from selling or otherwise disposing of the lease for a gasoline service station located in Flushing, New York; (2) as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the same court dated December 16, 1991, as granted Sandra Serdaroglu's motion to preclude him from offering evidence or testimony with regard to financial information which she had sought in her notice for discovery and inspection in Action No. 1; (3) from an order of the same court dated November 30, 1992, which appointed a referee to supervise disclosure in Action No. 1; and (4) from an order of the same court dated December 7, 1992, which, inter alia, denied his motion, among other things, for a protective order. Turgay Kadioglu, Irem Kadioglu, and Boulevard Management, Inc., defendants in Action No. 3, and Mustafa Serdaroglu appeal from an order of the same court, entered July 15, 1992, which granted the motion of Sandra Serdaroglu to appoint a temporary receiver for the gasoline service stations located in Flushing, New York, and East Elmhurst, New York.
ORDERED that the order entered July 15, 1992, is reversed, as a matter of discretion, without costs or disbursements, and the motion to appoint a temporary receiver is denied.
The Supreme Court did not err in restraining Mustafa Serdaroglu (hereinafter Mustafa) from selling the lease to the service station located on Parsons Boulevard in Flushing, New York. Mustafa retains exlusive control over the lease to that service station, and "his unilateral decision to transfer, sell or otherwise encumber [it] may serve to deprive the [defendant] of her equitable share of it" (Frankel v. Frankel, 150 A.D.2d 520, 541 N.Y.S.2d 114).
In addition, the Supreme Court did not err in precluding Mustafa from offering evidence or testimony with regard to the financial information sought by Sandra Serdaroglu (hereinafter Sandra) in her notice for discovery and inspection. While Sandra failed to provide Mustafa with 20 days notice to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Moran v. Moran
...of a danger of irreparable loss ( see Matter of Armienti & Brooks, 309 A.D.2d 659, 767 N.Y.S.2d 2 [2003]; Serdaroglu v. Serdaroglu, 209 A.D.2d 606, 622 N.Y.S.2d 51 [1994] ). Plaintiff did not show that he would suffer irreparable loss if a receiver were not appointed, and did not dispute th......
- Serdaroglu v. Serdaroglu
-
Beatty v. Williams
...N.Y.S.2d 151; Somerville House Mgt. v. American Tel. Syndication Co., 100 A.D.2d 821, 822, 474 N.Y.S.2d 756; cf., Serdaroglu v. Serdaroglu, 209 A.D.2d 606, 608, 622 N.Y.S.2d 51). In light of the issues of fact regarding the ownership interests of the parties, the court properly denied that ......
-
Estate of Tecson v. Cho
...properties and hiding the proceeds from [plaintiff] were insufficient to warrant the appointment of a receiver"); Serdaroglu v. Serdaroglu, 209 A.D.2d 606, 608 (2d Dep't 1994) (conclusory allegations insufficient to warrant the appointment of a receiver). The showing made here is "insuffici......