Legal Opinion
DaSilva v. DaSilva
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided March 4, 1996PublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
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…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Modern Collection Associates, Inc. v. Capital Group, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1988
- Serdaroglu v. SerdarogluAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1994
3Cited by6 opinions
- Vardaris Tech, Inc. v. Paleros Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2008
- Iannone v. IannoneAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2006
- Kwang Hee Lee v. Adjmi 936 Realty AssociatesAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2006
- Lee v. 183 Port Richmond Avenue Realty, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2003
- Rose v. RoseAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2003
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.