The moving parties, whose property was placed in receivership, sought an extension of time to file a motion for leave to appeal an approval and vesting order, as well as a stay of that order pending appeal.
The motion judge dismissed the extension request, finding the moving parties failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for their delay, the delay prejudiced the receiver, and the proposed appeal lacked merit.
Consequently, the motion for a stay pending appeal was also dismissed, as there was no active appeal before the court and the balance of convenience favored the receiver.
