Summary
holding that a receiver was properly appointed when a receiver was needed to ensure corporation's assets were maintained during litigation
Summary of this case from Lavi v. AssaOpinion
January 12, 1999.
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Herman Cahn, J.).
In light of the compelling evidence of a struggle within the subject corporation threatening its continued viability, the motion court's appointment of a temporary receiver for the corporation was a provident exercise of discretion ( see, Modern Telecommunications v. Dalessandro, 185 A.D.2d 218). We modify only to the extent of specifying that the receiver is to continue to discharge his responsibilities in accordance with the stipulation executed by the parties in connection with this Court's interim order. The authority accorded Mr. Snitow, the receiver appointed by the motion court, pursuant to that stipulation, in our judgment remains essential to the preservation of the corporation's assets during the pendency of the underlying litigation ( see, Business Corporation Law § 1202 Bus. Corp. [b]; Koral v. Savory, Inc., 276 N.Y. 215, 218).
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Rosenberger, Lerner and Saxe, JJ.