| Unger v Unger |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 04226 [62 AD3d 986] |
| May 26, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Arthur Unger, Respondent, v Jeanne Unger,Appellant. |
—[*1] Dominic Barbara, Garden City, N.Y., for respondent.
In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant wife appeals, as limited by herbrief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Iannacci, J.), datedDecember 17, 2007, as granted that branch of the plaintiff husband's motion which was torestrain the appointed temporary receiver from disbursing any funds to D&A StructuralContractors, Inc., or any agents for the reconstruction of the marital residence.
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The wife had exclusive use and possession of the marital residence during the pendency ofthis divorce proceeding. Before there was an equitable distribution of the marital assets, themarital residence was destroyed by a fire. Without the husband's knowledge, the wife contractedwith D&A Structural Contractors, Inc. (hereinafter D&A), to reconstruct the marital home. Thereconstruction was paid for with insurance proceeds in the amount of $1,555,497.21, transferreddirectly to D&A. A temporary receiver was appointed by the Supreme Court upon the husband'sapplication to oversee the wife's real and personal property. The temporary receiver collected theinsurance proceeds that were held by D&A and deposited the money into an escrow account.The husband moved, by an order to show cause, pursuant to Domestic Relations Law §234 and CPLR 6401 to restrain the temporary receiver from, inter alia, transferring money toD&A. The wife owed D&A the sum of $362,056.04 for work it already completed and forcustom doors and windows at the time the husband sought to restrain the temporary receiverfrom transferring funds to D&A. The Supreme Court granted the relief requested by the husbandto restrain the temporary receiver from, inter alia, transferring funds to D&A. We affirm.
Upon the husband's application, the Supreme Court properly limited the temporary receiver'spowers by restraining him from disbursing funds held in an escrow account to pay for thereconstruction of the marital home (see CPLR 6401 [b]; Harris v Ron Props.,240 AD2d 344 [1997]).
The wife's belated request for an undertaking is improperly raised for the first time onappeal.[*2]
The wife's remaining contentions are either without meritor unpreserved for appellate review. Spolzino, J.P., Florio, Angiolillo and Balkin, JJ., concur.