Opinion
June 13, 1996
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Irma Vidal Santaella, J.).
Since a receiver had been appointed and a judgment of foreclosure and sale previously entered, without any appeal having been taken, and since the mortgage provided for an ex parte appointment of a receiver, the appointment of a second receiver after the bankruptcy court lifted the automatic stay was proper ( see, RPAPL 1325; Real Property Law § 254; State St. Bank v. Broadway/St. Nicholas Assocs., 214 A.D.2d 474). This exercise of discretion was particularly appropriate given the entry of a consent order with the Department of Housing Preservation and Development to repair 596 building code violations, constituting clear evidence of waste and mismanagement ( see, CPLR art 64; Hahn v. Wylie, 54 A.D.2d 622). We have considered defendant-appellant's remaining arguments and find them to be without merit.
Concur — Rosenberger, J.P., Wallach, Nardelli and Tom, JJ.