[brief] Appellants, the [...], are personal injury claimants in a related matter.  On July 23, 2021, [...] was injured in a parking lot outside of the [...].  This was followed by an August 2, 2021 preservation letter from counsel/putting the diner and Landlord on notice/further notice.  As is usual, the [...] sought to proceed any tenant and Landlord or landowner.  Those named in the lawsuit instituted July 21, 2023 include [...] et. al. (Landlord/landowner), and [...] Corporation (“[...]”) (Tenant).  The suit also named [...] (“[...]”) and [...] (“[...]”) as principals, including in that [...]’s charter has been revoked.  However, the “tenancy” of “[...]” and/or [...] itself was impacted by events.  A lender of [...], [...] (the “[...]”), sued [...] as well as [...] and [...] as guarantors for alleged default.  In that action, the [...] succeeded in having [...], Esq. (“[...]”/“Receiver”) appointed Statutory Receiver of [...], [...] and [...].  Afterwards, on October 22, 2021, the diner was purportedly “taken over”.  There was no judgment of possession.  The [...] also succeeded in having [...] named Special Master to conduct a foreclosure sale of property of [...], which resulted in a “sale” on January 18, 2022, including relative to the “leasehold interest” of [...].  The sale was to [...], an “entity” of the [...].  [...] claims the [...], through [...], has owned the assets of [...] since.  He acknowledges that there are issues around the sale, including who owns the building.  He claims he has been paid $300/hour by the [...] and that he was or became an employee of [...].  [...] purports and/or has purported to be in possession.  Mori initiated an eviction action against [...] and [...] as Receiver in early 2022, which is ongoing.  [...] has stated he has/had been operating the diner with and/or for the [...] and/or [...].  The [...] named [...] in their lawsuit, including due to the foregoing, which has created a number of issues, concerns and questions.  Just one issue is that of successor liability.  Although [...] has been on notice of [...]’s injury as set forth above, [...] as Receiver did not take required action to ascertain, identify and notice creditors such as the [...].  The record reflects no attempt or effort to preserve and/or locate evidence, including video.  The record reflects that [...] did not provide inventories and accountings to the Court as required.  The record reflects that in addition to him acting as Special Master while Receiver, that the sale he conducted engendered confusion and litigation.  The record reflects that [...] acted in concert with and/or for the [...] and/or [...], in ways inconsistent and contrary to his appointed role as Receiver.  It was the [...] and [...] who elected to seek and accept the appointment of [...] as Receiver, and actions should have been taken accordingly.  The Trial Court erroneously excused and discharged the Receiver and denied the [...] their motion to intervene.  This Court that had supervisory authority did not require the Receiver to account for or take steps relative to the [...] of notice, preservation of evidence, claims, record keeping and record production, accounting for assets, liabilities, etc. of [...] and/or accounting for and/or clarifying confusion and uncertainty created relative to [...] and the lease as those existed on July 23, 2021 versus after.  The Court erroneously determined that granting the Receiver relief and denying the [...] relief would not be or could not be of consequence to them.