In Re Riverside Nursing Home

137 B.R. 134, 1992 Bankr. LEXIS 1258, 1992 WL 36344
CourtUnited States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. New York
DecidedFebruary 24, 1992
Docket18-37131
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 137 B.R. 134 (In Re Riverside Nursing Home) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
In Re Riverside Nursing Home, 137 B.R. 134, 1992 Bankr. LEXIS 1258, 1992 WL 36344 (N.Y. 1992).

Opinion

DECISION ON APPLICATION FOR A POST-CONFIRMATION ORDER DIRECTING DEBTOR TO JOIN IN EXECUTION AND DELIVERY OF AGREEMENT PROVIDING FOR TRANSFER OF NURSING HOME FACILITY TO A VOLUNTARY RECEIVER

HOWARD SCHWARTZBERG, Bankruptcy Judge.

Rednel Tower, Ltd. (“Rednel”), the owner of the debtor’s premises as a result of a mortgage foreclosure, has applied pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 1142 for a post-confirmation order directing the debtor, Riverside Nursing Home (“Riverside”), to join in the execution and delivery of an agreement providing for the transfer of the Riverside nursing home facility to a voluntary receiver. In lieu of conversion to Chapter 7, the debtor, Riverside, entered into a Stipulation and Order in its Chapter 11 case whereby Riverside agreed to file a plan providing for the transfer of the Riverside nursing home facility either to a transferee approved by the New York State Department of Health or to a voluntary receiver in *135 accordance with § 2810 of the New York Public Health Law. Riverside’s confirmed amended plan incorporated the Stipulation and Order and provides, in part, for turnover of the nursing home to a transferee approved by the New York Department of Health within 30 days after the effective date of the plan. This period ended on August 28, 1989.

The debtor, Riverside, opposes Rednel’s application on the ground that the time for the debtor to turn over possession of its facilities ended on August 28, 1989 and that Rednel’s application is too late and is barred by laches. Additionally, Riverside argues that a receiver can only be appointed after August 28,1989 on conditions that are acceptable to it and with its consent.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Riverside filed a petition for relief in this court on June 3,1982 under Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code and has continued in the possession, management and operation of its business, a nursing home located in Haverstraw, New York.

2. Rednel is the owner of the premises occupied by Riverside pursuant to a Referee’s Deed delivered to Rednel and recorded on April 15, 1986.

3. By stipulation dated February 3, 1989 and so-ordered by this court on February 8, 1989, Riverside agreed, within thirty days after confirmation of the plan of reorganization, to turn over the premises it occupies to a transferee designated by Red-nel and approved by the New York State Department of Health and the Public Health Council of the State of New York.

4. On July 13,1989, this court approved the debtor’s First Amended Plan of Reorganization and entered an order which states, in pertinent part:

The turnover of the debtor’s operations to a transferee designated by Red-nel Tower, Ltd. and approved by the New York State Department of Health and the Public Health Council of the State of New York, as contemplated by paragraph 5.06 of the First Amended Plan of Reorganization, be, and it hereby is approved.

5. Paragraph 5.06 of the First Amended Plan of Reorganization provides as follows:

Thirty days after the effective date, the debtor’s operations shall be turned over to a transferee designated by Red-nel and approved by the New York State Department of Health and the Public Health Council of the State of New York. If a transferee has not been so approved, then subject to approval of a receiver agreement by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York, the debtor shall then consent to the appointment of a voluntary receiver appointed pursuant to New York Public Health Law § 2810.

First Amended Plan of Reorganization at para. 5.06.

6. The “effective date,” as defined in the plan, is the next business date after the order confirming the plan becomes final. The plan defines “final order” as the first business day after the time to appeal or seek review or rehearing of the order has expired. Accordingly, the time for the debtor to turn over possession of its facilities to a transferee designated by Rednel and approved by the New York State Department of Health and the Public Health Council of the State of New York ended on August 28, 1989.

7. Pursuant to the terms of the plan and the July 13, 1989 order of this court, Rednel designated a transferee, who submitted an application for approval to the New York State Department of Health.

8. Although Riverside requested the appointment of Charles Brennick as transferee, the New York State Department of Health did not take action on the request within 30 days after confirmation of the debtor’s plan. Indeed, the New York State Department of Health failed to approve or reject the appointment of Charles Brennick as transferee.

9. Accordingly, by application dated August 23, 1989, Rednel requested that this court enter an order extending to October 2, 1989, the 30 day period for turnover of Riverside’s facility. At the hearing held on *136 September 5, 1989, counsel for Riverside expressed his desire to wind down the debt- or’s operations in the following language:

Your Honor, perhaps we can clarify. The essence of this motion is that Rednel would like Riverside to keep operating pending approval of their designated receiver so that the receiver can take over operations. And we’ve provided in the plan that that turnover would take place within thirty days, and it hasn’t happened because the State has not approved Rednel’s designee. Nor has Red-nel which it could, proffer a substitute designee who doesn’t have the problems that Mr. Brenick [sic] may have, being approved. Rednel has stuck with its initial choice and due to perhaps some of its own actions, and certainly the State’s, it has not been approved.
....
Rednel doesn’t want Riverside to wind down. Rednel wants to compel Riverside to continue in operation, continue to lose money, and not offer it any reimbursement for its losses. Riverside would like to wind down. If there is something approved, if there is a receiver approved during that time period, we can discuss it at that point.

Record at 12-14.

10. The court denied Rednel’s request to extend the 30 day period for turnover of Riverside’s facility and also entered an order dated October 11, 1989 which authorized Riverside, pursuant to paragraph 5.01 of the amended plan, to wind down and liquidate its operations.

11. Thereafter, in November of 1989, Rednel submitted a voluntary receiver agreement to Riverside which named Northern Metropolitan Residential Health Care Facility, Inc. (“Northern Metropolitan”) as the receiver. This proposed agreement was submitted for approval to the Health Department on November 17, 1989. Riverside did not sign the voluntary receiver agreement, although it was signed by Rednel, Northern Metropolitan, and the office of Health Systems Management, New York State Department of Health.

12. Northern Metropolitan’s executive director testified that it proposes to purchase the premises from Rednel and will apply to the Department of Health for authority to become the licensed operator of the nursing home.

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
137 B.R. 134, 1992 Bankr. LEXIS 1258, 1992 WL 36344, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-riverside-nursing-home-nysb-1992.