Ordered that the order dated September 30, 1994, is modified, on the law, by deleting the provision thereof which granted the plaintiff's motion and substituting therefor a provision denying the plaintiff's motion; as so modified, the order dated September 30, 1994, is affirmed, without costs or disbursements; and it is further,
Ordered that the appeal from the branch of the order dated December 2, 1994, which denied the defendants' motion to reargue and renew the plaintiff's motion is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, as academic, in light of the determination on the appeal from the order dated September 30, 1994, and it is further,
Ordered that the appeal from the branch of the order dated December 2, 1994, which denied the defendants' motion to reargue the Referee's cross motion is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, on the ground that no appeal lies from an order or part thereof denying reargument.
It is well settled that the appointment of a temporary receiver is an extreme remedy which can only be invoked in cases in which the moving party has made a clear evidentiary showing of the necessity for conservation of the property and protection of the interests of the movant ( see, Serdaroglou v Serdaraglou, 209 A.D.2d 606; Modern Collection Assocs. v Capital Group, 140 A.D.2d 594). The plaintiff's showing, which consisted primarily of his attorney's conclusory allegations, was rebutted by documentary proof and the sworn statement of the defendant Doreen DaSilva Costello in an affidavit that pending violations on the real property in question had been corrected.
The appellants' remaining contentions are without merit. O'Brien, J.P., Santucci, Altman and Goldstein, JJ., concur.