The plaintiff brought a motion to extend a Mareva injunction related to an alleged $1.4 million renovation fraud.
A defendant brought a cross-motion to discharge the order against him, and a non-party sought relief from an order compelling his examination under oath.
The court extended the Mareva order, dismissed the defendant's cross-motion as premature due to missing financial disclosure, and suspended the examination order against the non-party due to lack of service and reliance on implausible hearsay evidence.
The court also provided strict directions regarding the proper use of CaseLines and hyperlinking for future attendances.
