In Re: Christopher Mongiello

District Court, S.D. New York·Decided March 1, 2024·No. 7:24-cv-00694·Unknown

Opinion

Application denied. This Court could not remo a receiver appointed by a state judge even if it CHRISTOPHER M. MONGIELLO wanted to, which it does not. 25 LEROY PLACE, PH #7 NEW ROCHELLE, NY 10805 SO ORDERED. TEL: 914 646-8224 therockacademy@mac.com (Mh i , £.0 03/01/24 CL fey RELA UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CATHY S#IBEL, U.S.D.J. SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK XX } APPEALS CASE NO. 7:24-cv-00694-CS In Re: } CH 13 BK. CASE NO. 23-22732 CHRISTOPHER M. MONGIELLO } RECONSIDERATION OF Debtor, } MOTION FOR STAY PENDING APPEAL } FOR TERMINATION OF } RECEIVERSHIP } AND FOR CERTIFICATION } EVICTION DATE FEBRUARY 23, 2024 To the Court, Debtor / Appellant Christopher M. Mongiello respectfully requests that the court reconsider the relief sought by the Appellant on the following grounds: At the behest of this court, Mongiello shared the unredacted written offer with the Tiffany Eastman, the temporary receiver. Instead of her consenting to the offer, she objected. She did not consider it. She did not accept it. She instead attacked Mongiello. Then, after receiving her threatening text, Mongiello received an email from Tiffany Eastman’s attorney, where the language from the email clearly was the source of her response. Eastman clearly has no intent to act as a temporary receiver. She has taken no steps to market the property after the lifting of the stay, and her only action to date was to seek an order of eviction of the Appellant. In order to mitigate his damages, he was readily able to find an

arm’s length buyer through the realtor that Mongiello AND Eastman originally used to locate the unit to purchase in the first instance. Mongiello will suffer great and irreparable harm if this sale is not accepted. He will be forced to move out with no ability to find storage, and no ability to find

suitable alternate housing. She takes nothing from the sale of the property. She takes nothing as receiver. According to the April 7th, 2023 Settlement Agreement Eastman and her attorney refer to in their objection to the sale, it says, “THE COURT: Defense counsel, anything to add? Proceedings 8 MR. GEMELLI: Yes, your Honor. The parties have agreed that the second modification that was instituted before the Court and was so ordered by the Court, in the event that the property is sold, the plaintiff is waiving any interest to any of the net proceeds after the payment of the mortgage and carrying charges or any judgments or debts related to the said property as well as the fact that in the event that the plaintiff is appointed receiver, she will waive any commissions, as we discussed, in connection with this matter. Ms. Marino, anything else? MS. MARINO: Just more specifically, Ms. Eastman has been appointed temporary receivership. She is -- part of the agreement is that she is willing to waive any temporary receivership fees incurred to date, as well as future fees incurred in connection with this litigation. MS. KENYON: That's correct, your Honor, that is our understanding.” At the behest of this court, Mongiello shared the offer with the temporary receiver who clearly has waived all rights to the proceeds from the property and all rights to any receivership fees incurred to date as well as all future fees incurred in connection with this litigation. She has been presented with an offer which sells the property, which solves her pretend problem of harm to her credit, (which is unsupported by any evidence, credit report, denial of credit, or evidence of any harm and the subject of pending discovery propounded to her in the bankruptcy court proceedings). She has waived all her rights to all future legal fees from April 7, 2023 to the present. Debtor / Appellant then responded, asking for a simple yes or no response, not an objection. Do you consent to the sale, Yes or No. Her response came not from her, but from her counsel.

8:32 oT < @ 7 Messages nn Vv

Meredith Kenyon 8:31AM ‘To: > eG RE: Written Contract Offer- Not Signed Mr. Mongiello, Again, Ms. Eastman — who is the receiver of the property and the only person with authority to enter into a contract with respect to the sale of this property — objects to the contract. | will not engage in further communications regarding this issue. Thank you, Meredith Kenyon Meredith J. Kenyon, Esq. Ressler & Associates 222 Bloomingdale Road, Suite 302 White Plains, New York 10605 Tel: 914-761-2300 Fax: 914-761-2301 mkenyon@westchestermatrimonial.com www.westchestermatrimonial.com | cay ACFL te - ree Me qm (2 — WwW 5

Clearly, they have no intention of accepting this offer, no intention of acting as a receiver, and only intend on intentionally causing harm to the bankruptcy estate, cause harm to the debtor, and incur damages for which they have already agreed they are not entitled to ever recover. The April 7th, settlement agreement is quite

explicit. Eastman has waived her rights to any of the proceeds from the sale of the property; waived her rights to any commission for the sale of the property; waived her rights to any fees as a receiver; and waived her rights to future legal fees after April 7th, 2023. There was absolutely NO reason not to accept the offer. Debtor asked for an explanation or justification if the receiver did not consent. Instead of responding, her counsel just reiterated her objection and said she objected. See the attached correspondence chain. Tiffany Eastman has breached her fiduciary duties as a receiver. “The elements

of a claim for breach of fiduciary duty under New York law are "breach by a fiduciary of a duty owed to plaintiff; defendant's knowing participation in the breach; and damages."[234] Generally, no fiduciary duties arise where parties deal at arm's length in conventional business transactions.[235] However, a fiduciary relationship may arise where the parties to a contract specifically agree to such a relationship, or if "one party's superior position or superior access to confidential information is so great as virtually to require the other party to

repose trust and confidence in the first party."[236] The plaintiff must demonstrate 196*196 that the defendant was "under a duty to act for or to give advice for the benefit of another upon matters within the scope of the relation."[237] "While the `exact limits' of what constitutes a fiduciary relationship are `impossible of statement,' a fiduciary relationship may be found in any case `in which influence has been acquired and abused, in which confidence has been reposed and betrayed.'"[238] Contractual relations or formal writings are not

required to establish a fiduciary duty.[239] "Rather, the ongoing conduct between parties must be considered."[240] Whether a party reposed confidence in another and reasonably relied on the other's superior expertise or knowledge is a "fact-specific inquiry."[241] Where a plaintiff alleges a breach of fiduciary duty by conduct not amounting to fraud, such as breach of a duty of care, disclosure, or loyalty, the general pleading standards set out by Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, not the heightened standards of Rule 9(b), apply.[242]” The elements of a claim for breach of fiduciary duty under New York

law are "breach by a fiduciary of a duty owed to plaintiff; defendant's knowing participation in the breach; and damages." SCS Commc'ns., Inc. v. Herrick Co., 360 F.3d 329, 342 (2d Cir.2004). DUTY: As a result of this direct appointment of the receiver, a fiduciary relationship has been established.

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

Related