Orange Owner, LLC v. M & E 336-348 E. 18th St., LLC

Orange Owner, LLC v M & E 336-348 E. 18th St., LLC 2026 NY Slip Op 30875(U) March 6, 2026 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: Index No. 850529/2025 Judge: Francis A. Kahn III Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York State and local government sources, including the New York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service.

This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication.

file:///LRB-ALB-FS1/Vol1/ecourts/Process/covers/NYSUP.8505292025.NEW_YORK.001.LBLX000_TO.html[03/17/2026 3:45:51 PM] !FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/09/2026 10: 57 AM! INDEX NO. 850529/2025 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 53 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/06/2026

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY PRESENT: HON. FRANCIS A. KAHN, Ill PART 32 Justice -------------------------------------------------------------X INDEX NO. 850529/2025 ORANGE OWNER, LLC, MOTION DATE Plaintiff, MOTION SEQ. NO. -----=--00.:..._1_ __ - V - M & E 336-348 E. 18TH ST., LLC,STEVEN CROMAN, HARRIET CROMAN, NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING PRESERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT, NEW YORK CITY ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL BOARD, DECISION + ORDER ON EDWARD CROMAN, EDWARD L. CROMAN REVOCABLE MOTION TRUST-S, NYC BUREAU OF HIGHWAY OPERATIONS, THE CITY OF NEW YORK, JOHN DOE Defendant. --------------·--------X The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 001) 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29,30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39,40,41,42, 43,44, 45,46,47,48,49, 50, 51, 52 were read on this motion to/for APPOINT - FIDUCIARY Upon the foregoing documents, the motion is determined as follows: In this action, Plaintiff seeks to foreclose on a CEMA Mortgage, dated September 29, 2017, encumbering a parcel of improved real property located at 340/342 East 18th Street, New York, New York. Plaintiff commenced this action wherein it is alleged Defendants defaulted in repayment of the note. Now, Plaintiff moves pursuant to RPL §254[10] and RP APL §1325[1] for the appointment of a temporary receiver of the rents of the mortgaged premises. Mortgagor and Guarantor Defendants oppose the motion.

Under Real Property Law §254[1 0], the appointment of a receiver in the event of a default is proper where the parties to the mortgage agree to same even without notice or without regard to the sufficiency of security (see ADHY Advisors LLC. v 530 W. I 52nd St. LLC, 82 AD3d 619 [I5t Dept 2011]; 366 Fourth St. Corp. v Foxfire Enters., 149 AD2d 692 [2 nd Dept 1989]). Despite the parties' assent, the appointment is not perfunctory and the Court, in the exercise of its equitable power, retains the discretion to deny the appointment of a receiver (see ADHY Advisors LLC. v 530 W. 152nd St. LLC, supra; Nechadim Corp. v Simmons, 171 AD3d 1195, 1197 [2d Dept 2019]).

Section 13.1 of the mortgage provides, in pertinent part, as follows: (9) Receiver or Possession. (a) Lender shall be entitled, as a matter of strict right, without notice to any Person and ex parte, and without regard to the value, condition or occupancy of the security or of the Property, or the solvency of Borrower or of any Guarantor or lndemnitor, or the adequacy of the Property as security for the Note, to have 850529/2025 ORANGE OWNER, LLC vs. M & E 336-348 E. 18TH ST., LLC ET AL Page 1 of 5 Motion No. 001

In the present case, it is undisputed that the parties' mortgage provides that Plaintiff may apply for the appointment of a receiver and Plaintiff pled that Defendants, inter alia, defaulted in repayment of the indebtedness, a default event under the loan documents. Accordingly, Plaintiff established its entitlement to the appointment of a receiver of the mortgaged premises (see eg SKW Hillside Bleeker Lender LLC v 145 Bleeker LLC, 217 AD3d 536 [1 st Dept 2023]; CSFB 2004-CJ Bronx Apts LLC v Sinckler, inc., 96 AD3d 680 [ pt Dept 2012]). In opposition, Defendants have not demonstrated that denial of the appointment of a receiver is an appropriate exercise of the Court's discretion (see id.; US Bank, NA. v Rufai, 202 AD3d 719, 721 [2d Dept 2022]; Shaw Funding, LP v Bennett, 185 AD3d 857, 858 [2 nd Dept 2020]).

In opposition, Defendants have not demonstrated that denial of the appointment of a receiver is an appropriate exercise of the Court's discretion (see id.; US Bank, NA. v Rufai, 202 AD3d 719, 721 [2d Dept 2022]; Shaw Funding, LP v Bennett, 185 AD3d 857, 858 [2 nd Dept 2020]). To the extent Defendants' opposition is based on cases where appointment of a receiver was sought pursuant to CPLR §6401 it is unavailing (see eg Groh v Halloran, 86 AD2d 30 [1 st Dept 1982]). The Appellate Division cases are clear that where, as here, the mortgage contains a provision that a lender may apply for a receiver, the mortgagor may seek such relief '"regardless of proving the necessity for the appointment'" (see GECMC 2007-Cl Ditmars Lodging, LLC v Moho/a, LLC, 84 AD3d 1311, 1312 [2d Dept 2011], citing Naar v. J.J Litwak & Co., 260 AD2d 613 [2d Dept 1999]; see also SKW Hillside Bleeker Lender LLC v 145 Bleeker LLC, supra).

The argument that Plaintiff's affidavit of Gerson Monzon, the Senior Vice President of Bellwether Management LLC, the alleged servicer for and an authorized signatory of plaintiff, is insufficient to support this motion fails. This is neither a motion for a default judgment nor for summary judgment which are authorized by statutes that contain express evidentiary requisites (see CPLR §§3212[b] and 3215[f]). No similar provision is contained in either RPL §254(10] or RPAPL §1325[1] (see SKW Hillside Bleecker Lender, LLC v 145 Bleecker LLC, supra at 537). Indeed, "[c]ases hold that a receiver may be appointed so long as an action has been commenced" (HSBC Bank USA, NA. v Rubin, 210 AD3d 73, 83 [2d Dept 2022]). The claim that presently unpled defenses and other purported deficiencies in its action defeats this motion is without merit. A plaintiff "may apply for the appoi~tment of a receiver, without notice and without regard for adequacy of the security for the debt, and wzthout requirement that plaintfff demonstrate more than what is required by Real Property Law§ 850529/2025 ORANGE OWNER, LLC vs. M & E 336-348 E. 18TH ST., LLC ET AL Page 2 of 5 Motion No. 001

254(1 O)" (SKW Hillside Bleecker Lender, LLC v 145 Bleecker LLC, 217 AD3d 536, 537 [l st Dept 2023] [emphasis added]).

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the motion for the appointment of a Temporary Receiver is granted; and it is further ORDERED that Kenneth Dillon (Fiduciary No. 107305) is hereby appointed with the usual powers and directions of a Temporary Receiver for the benefit of Plaintiff of all the rents and profits now due and unpaid or become due during the pendency of this action and issuing out the mortgaged property mentioned located at 340/342 East 18th Street, New York, New York; and it is further ORDERED that the Temporary Receiver is authorized to take charge and enter into possession of the property; and it is further ORDERED that before entering her/his duties, the Temporary Receiver shall be sown to fairly and faithfully discharge the duties committed to him and shall execute to the People of the State of New York and file with the Clerk of the Court an undertaking in the sum of $260,000.00 conditioned for the faithful discharge of the duties of Temporary Receiver; and it is further ORDERED that the Temporary Receiver is hereby directed to demand, collect and receive from the occupants, tenants and licensees in possession of said premises, or other persons liable therefor, inclusive of the mortgagor, all the rents and license fees thereof now due or unpaid or hereafter that become fixed or due and the Temporary Receiver is authorized to institute and carry on all legal proceedings necessary for the protection of said premises or to recover possession of the whole, or any part thereof, and apply to this Court to fix reasonable rental value and license fee value and to compel the tenants and occupants to attorn to the Temporary Receiver; and it is further 1\ i ORDERED that the Temporary Receiver may institute and prosecute suits for the collection of rent, license fees and other charges now due or hereafter to become due and fixed, and summary proceedings for the removal of any tenants or licensees or other persons therefrom; and it is further ORDERED that pursuant to the General Obligation Law section 7-105, anybody holding any deposits or advances of rental as security under any lease or license agreement affecting space in the premises affected by this action shall turn same over to said Temporary Receiver within five (5) days after said Temporary Receiver shall be qualified; and thereupon the said Temporary Receiver shall hold such security subject to such disposition thereof as shall be provided in an Order of the Court to be made and entered in this action; and it is further ORDERED that anybody in possession of same shall turn over to said Temporary Receiver all rent lists, order~, unexpired and expired leases, agreements, correspondence, notices and registration statements relating to rental spaces or facilities in the premises; and it is further ORDERED that notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this order the Te1?p?rary Rec_eiver shall not, without the further, prior order of this Court, upon prior ~otice to the plamt1ff, m~ke improvement~ or substantial repairs to the property at a cost in excess of $5,000.00, except that m an emergency, 1f funds need to be expended in excess of $5,000.00 or would otherwise 850~29/2025 ORANGE OWNER, LLC vs. M & E 336-348 E. 18TH ST. LLC ET AL Motion No. 001 ' Page 3 of 5

ORDERED that the appointed named herein shall comply with Section 35a of the Judiciary Law, Sections 6401-6404 of the CPLR, Section 1325 of RP APL and Rule 36 of the Chief Judge; and it is i further 1

ORDERED that notwithstanding any other provision of this order, the Temporary Receiver shall not appoint an attorney, managing agent, appraiser, auctioneer or accountant without prior order of this Court, and that the receiver shall apply to the court and file a separate application for appointment of a managing agent, attorney or other managing services pursuant to 36.1 of the Uniform Court Rules.

3/6/2026 DATE it, l. . .Jv--~ H~f~i,A!R<A.HN II~• I CHECK ONE: CASE DISPOSED NON-FINAL DISPOSITION J.S.C. ' GRANTED □ DENIED GRANTED IN PART □ OTHER APPLICATION: SETTLE ORDER SUBMIT ORDER CHECK IF APPROPRIATE: INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT □ REFERENCE

850?29/2025 ORANGE OWNER, LLC vs. M & E 336-348 E. 18TH ST., LLC ET AL Motion No. 001 Page 5 of 5