Realty Law Digest
Scott E. Mollen, a partner at Herrick, Feinstein and an adjunct professor at St. John's University School of Law discusses 'Lavi v. Assa,' where a temporary receiver was appointed, as plaintiff might have lost equity interest in the subject property.
August 29, 2017 at 02:01 PM
15 minute read
Temporary Receiver Appointed—Investor Dispute—Defendant Allegedly Reneged on Joint Venture—Allegations of Fraud and Mismanagement—Operation of Apartments as Illegal Hotel
The plaintiff moved for an order pursuant to CPLR 6301, enjoining defendants from “selling, transferring, or hypothecating” the subject premises (property) without the plaintiff's consent and pursuant to CPLR 6401, appointing a temporary receiver during the pendency of the action. The court granted both motions.
“A,” the property owner, had commenced a Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceeding. “A's” sole asset were “two…four-story mixed-use,…buildings and…unused development rights.” The Bankruptcy Court had approved a minimum bid for the property of $9 million. The plaintiff alleged that “B,” on behalf of “A,” had signed the bankruptcy proceeding petition and had represented that “he would be operating the…property during said proceeding.” “B” had signed an affidavit admitting that he is the sole member of “A.” The affidavit stated that the debtor “fell behind on mortgage payments following the 2008 economic crisis and cash flow problems.” “B” admitted that the property is burdened with an approximately $4 million first mortgage, “is subject to a foreclosure judgment” in favor of a second mortgagee in the amount of approximately $1.8 million, and “there is a third mortgage claim on the property in the amount of approximately $4 million.” “B” further swore that “he would be responsible for management of the property during the bankruptcy proceeding.”
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All'Nobody Else Knows': These Federal Appeals Courts Have Unique Local Rules
Defense Counsel Can't Use Unrelated Lawsuit to Impeach Expert Witness Testimony, Judge Rules
Citing Missed Deadline, 2nd Circuit Tosses Appeal Against Equitable Insurance
Trending Stories
- 1'I'm Staying Everything': Texas Bankruptcy Judge Halts Talc Trials Against J&J
- 2What We Know About the Kentucky Judge Killed in His Chambers
- 3Ex-Prosecutor and Judge Fatally Shot During Attempted Arrest on Federal Corruption Charges
- 4Judge Blasts Authors' Lawyers in Key AI Suit, Says Case Doomed Without Upgraded Team
- 5Federal Judge Won't Stop Title IX Investigation Into Former GMU Law Professor
Who Got The Work
Burr & Forman partner Garry K. Grooms has entered an appearance for 4M Acquisitions and Wallace D. Tweden in a pending environmental lawsuit. The action, filed July 22 in Tennessee Middle District Court by the McKellar Law Group and Mark E. Martin LLC on behalf of Tennessee Riverkeeper, contends that the defendant's violated the Clean Water Act and Tennessee Water Quality Control Act by allowing for the discharge of pollutants into waters of the U.S. without obtaining a National Pollutant Discharge permit. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Aleta A. Trauger, is 3:24-cv-00886, Tennessee Riverkeeper, Inc. v. Tweden et al.
Who Got The Work
Ramsey M. Al-Salam, Gene W. Lee and Stevan R. Stark of Perkins Coie have entered appearances for R-Pac International in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The case, filed Aug. 12 in New York Southern District Court by PinilisHalpern LLP and Friedman Suder & Cooke on behalf of Adasa Inc, asserts a single patent related to wireless sensors used for tagging products. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein, is 1:24-cv-06102, Adasa Inc. v. R-Pac International LLC.
Who Got The Work
Walmart has tapped lawyer Nicole M. Wright of Zausmer PC to defend a pending product liability lawsuit. The action was filed Aug. 12 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Wolfe Trial Lawyers on behalf of a plaintiff claiming burns from a defective propane tank. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Matthew F. Leitman, is 2:24-cv-12100, Hill v. Ferrellgas, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Kevin Simpson and James Randall of Winston & Strawn have stepped in to represent Comcast in a pending consumer class action. The case, filed Aug. 11 in Georgia Northern District Court by Kaufman PA, contends that the defendant placed pre-recorded debt collection phone calls to the plaintiff in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge J.P. Boulee, is 1:24-cv-03553, Pond v. Comcast Cable Communications LLC.
Who Got The Work
Potter Anderson & Corroon partners Christopher N. Kelly and Kevin R. Shannon have stepped in to represent cloud computing company Fastly and its top executives in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The complaint, filed Aug. 23 in Delaware District Court by deLeeuw Law and Bragar Eagel & Squire on behalf of Mark Sweitzer, accuses the defendant of failing to disclose that revenue growth in 2023 was primarily driven by a 'consolidation trend' in which companies simplified operations by reducing the number of content delivery network vendors under management, thereby reducing competition and increasing the defendant's market share. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Gregory B. Williams, is 1:24-cv-00969, Sweitzer v. Nightingale et al.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250