DaSilva v. DaSilva

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

DaSilva v. DaSilva

225 A.D.2d 513, 638 N.Y.2d 771

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMarch 4, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by247 cases

This text of 225 A.D.2d 513 (DaSilva v. DaSilva) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

DaSilva v. DaSilva, 225 A.D.2d 513, 638 N.Y.2d 771 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

It is well settled that the appointment of a temporary receiver is an extreme remedy which can only be invoked in cases in which the moving party has made a clear evidentiary showing of the necessity for conservation of the property and protection of the interests of the movant (see, Serdaroglou v Serdaraglou, 209 AD2d 606; Modern Collection Assocs. v Capital Group, 140 AD2d 594). The plaintiffs showing, which consisted primarily of his attorney’s conclusory allegations, was rebutted by documentary proof and the sworn statement of the defendant Doreen DaSilva Costello in an affidavit that pending violations on the real property in question had been corrected.

The appellants’ remaining contentions are without merit. O’Brien, J. P., Santucci, Altman and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

It is well settled that the appointment of a temporary receiver is an extreme remedy which can only be invoked in cases in which the moving party has made a clear evidentiary showing of the necessity for conservation of the property and protection of the interests of the movant (see, Serdaroglou v Serdaraglou, 209 AD2d 606; Modern Collection Assocs. v Capital Group, 140 AD2d 594). The plaintiffs showing, which consisted primarily of his attorney’s conclusory allegations, was rebutted by documentary proof and the sworn statement of the defendant Doreen DaSilva Costello in an affidavit that pending violations on the real property in question had been corrected.

The appellants’ remaining contentions are without merit. O’Brien, J. P., Santucci, Altman and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

225 A.D.2d 513, 638 N.Y.2d 771, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dasilva-v-dasilva-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack