We perceive no basis for disturbing the court's order directing distribution to plaintiff of the net proceeds of the sale of the property at issue. The court properly determined that plaintiff was entitled to those proceeds based upon loans it advanced related to the acquisition of the property, along with interest due on the loans.
The court's denial of recusal was an appropriate exercise of discretion (see Mehulic v New York Downtown Hosp.,
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Let's get started
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.