Case Name: Secured Capital Corp. of N. Y., Respondent, v. Norman Dansker et al., Defendants and Third-Party Plaintiffs-Appellants. Joanne Von Zwehl et al., Third-Party Defendants-Respondents
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1999-07-19
Citations: 263 A.D.2d 503
Docket Number: 
Parties: Secured Capital Corp. of N. Y., Respondent, v Norman Dansker et al., Defendants and Third-Party Plaintiffs-Appellants. Joanne Von Zwehl et al., Third-Party Defendants-Respondents.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 263
Pages: 503–504

Head Matter:
Secured Capital Corp. of N. Y., Respondent, v Norman Dansker et al., Defendants and Third-Party Plaintiffs-Appellants. Joanne Von Zwehl et al., Third-Party Defendants-Respondents.
[694 NYS2d 409]

Opinion:
—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.
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 AD2d 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 AD2d 884; Meurer v Meurer, 21 AD2d 778), they failed to demonstrate that those funds or properties are in danger of being materially injured or destroyed (see, CPLR 6401 [a]). Bracken, J. P., Ritter, Altman and Friedmann, JJ., concur.