On December 16, 2024, Justice Ruchelsman of the Kings County Commercial Division issued a decision in Pesochinsky v. Gurariy, 2024 NY Slip Op. 34371(U), holding that a dispute over the distribution of revenue did not justify the appointment of a receiver, explaining:
It is well settled that a temporary receiver should only be appointed where there is a clear evidentiary showing of the necessity for the conservation of the property at issue and the need to protect a party’s interests in that property. Thus, a temporary receiver is appropriate where the party has presented clear and convincing evidence of irreparable loss or waste. to the subject property and that a temporary receiver is needed to protect their interests. Moreover, a receiver is charged with the responsibility to preserve arid protect the property for the benefit of all persons interested in the estate and the receiver’s allegiance is only to the court.
There is scant evidence a receiver is necessary in this case. The basis for the receiver rests upon two grounds. First, that the defendant is undervaluing the market rents and second that the defendant has failed to give the plaintiff his proper distributions and is improperly giving distributions to Ofenbakh’s widow. First, there is little evidence supporting these allegations. Moreover, even if they are true they are not ·the sort of waste and irreparable loss that demands a receiver. Indeed, these claims can easily be resolved through an accounting, rather than a receiver.
Therefore, the motion seeking the appointment of a receiver is denied.
(Internal quotations and citations omitted).