Summary
affirming denial of appointment of receiver where defendants "failed to demonstrate that those funds or properties are in danger of being materially injured or destroyed"
Summary of this case from Gasser v. Infanti International, Inc.Opinion
Submitted May 18, 1999
July 19, 1999
In an action for a judgment declaring, inter alia, that no contract or joint venture exists with regard to certain property, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (O'Connell, J.), dated April 28, 1998, which denied their motion for the appointment of a temporary receiver.
Crisona Schwartz, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Richard A. Schwartz, Richard L. Crisona, and Christopher P. Milazzo of counsel), for defendants third-party plaintiffs-appellants.
Jeffrey B. Hulse, Islandia, N.Y., for plaintiff-respondent and third-party defendants-respondents.
LAWRENCE J. BRACKEN, J.P., DAVID S. RITTER, MYRIAM J. ALTMAN, WILLIAM D. FRIEDMANN, JJ.
DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The defendants' contention that the Supreme Court erred in denying their motion for the appointment of a temporary receiver is without merit. The appointment of a receiver is a drastic and intrusive remedy and may only be invoked in cases where the moving party has made a clear evidentiary showing of the necessity of conserving the property and protecting the interests of that party ( see, Modern Collection Assocs. v. Capital Group, 140 A.D.2d 594). While the defendants demonstrated their apparent interest in the specific funds and properties which are the subject of this action ( see, Lefebvre v. Shea, 212 A.D.2d 884; Meurer v. Meurer, 21 A.D.2d 778), they failed to demonstrate that those funds or properties are in danger of being materially injured or destroyed ( see, CPLR 6401[a]).