Crane Enterprises Llc

Court Listener

Automated Summary

Key Facts

Crane Enterprises, LLC filed a Chapter 11 bankruptcy petition on March 4, 2025. Michael E. Crane and Daniel M. Crane, who reside in a cooperative apartment owned by the Debtor at 360 Shore Road, Long Beach, NY, moved for relief from the automatic stay to pursue an appeal of a November 18, 2024 Nassau County District Court eviction judgment that ordered them evicted. Michael E. Crane filed a notice of appeal on December 23, 2024 but failed to perfect the appeal. On July 3, 2025, the Cranes filed a motion for relief from the automatic stay under Section 362(d)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code. The bankruptcy court granted the motion, concluding 'cause' exists to lift the stay because the Cranes' sole means of seeking judicial review of their leasehold interest is through the state court appeal, and the balance of harms weighs in their favor.

Issues

  • The court considered whether the Movants' months-long delay in perfecting their appeal warranted application of the laches doctrine to deny relief from the automatic stay. The court declined to apply laches, finding that the delay was not egregiously unreasonable and that refusing to lift the stay would inequitably create an absolute bar to the Cranes' pursuit of a merits adjudication now that they had been held collaterally estopped from challenging the judgment in the turnover proceeding.
  • The court addressed the request to waive the 14-day stay of effectiveness under Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 4001(a)(3). The court denied this request, declining to short-circuit the post-decision breathing period that the rules provide for reflection, appeals, and potential reconsideration in a hotly contested dispute. The Court determined that the stay serves to allow time for reflection and fruitful discussion among parties.
  • The court addressed whether Daniel M. Crane, who was not a party to the underlying state court eviction action, had standing to bring the motion for relief from the automatic stay. The court concluded that Crane's asserted interest in estate property and his desire to intervene in the appeal rendered him a party-in-interest. Without lifting the stay as to Daniel Crane, he would be barred from seeking judicial determination of his asserted entitlement to property of the bankruptcy estate.
  • The court determined whether 'cause' existed under Section 362(d)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code to grant relief from the automatic stay, allowing the Movants to pursue their appeal of a state court eviction judgment. The court applied the Sonnax factors to balance the competing interests and found that lifting the stay would not unduly interfere with the bankruptcy case, particularly because the court had recently granted turnover of the premises at issue. The balancing of harms weighed in favor of Michael E. Crane, who would otherwise be bound by the state-court ruling without an opportunity for appellate relief.

Holdings

The Court grants the Motion for Relief from the Automatic Stay pursuant to Section 362(d)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code, finding 'cause' exists to lift the stay. This decision allows Movants Michael E. Crane and Daniel M. Crane to proceed with their appeal of the state court eviction judgment. The Court overruled Debtor's objection and concluded that lifting the stay would not unduly interfere with the bankruptcy case, especially given the recent grant of turnover of the premises, and the balance of harms weighs in favor of the Movants. The Court denied the request to waive the 14-day stay of effectiveness and also granted relief to Daniel Crane as a party-in-interest.

Remedies

Court grants relief from automatic stay pursuant to Section 362(d)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code to allow Michael E. Crane and Daniel M. Crane to pursue appeal of eviction judgment in state court

Legal Principles

The court applied Section 362(d)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code to grant relief from the automatic stay, determining that 'cause' existed to lift the stay based on the Sonnax factors. The court found that lifting the stay would not unduly interfere with the bankruptcy case, the balance of harms favored the movants, and the state court system is the appropriate forum for state law disputes. The court also addressed collateral estoppel preventing relitigation of lease validity and confirmed both Michael and Daniel Crane as parties-in-interest. The court denied the request to waive the 14-day stay of effectiveness to allow time for reflection and appeals.

Precedent Name

  • In re Balco Ltd
  • In re Sonnax Indus., Inc. v. Tri Component Products Corp.
  • In re Celsius Network LLC
  • U.S. Bank Tr. Nat'l Ass'n v. AMR Corp.
  • Stern v. Marshall
  • In re Fairfield Sentry Ltd. Litig.
  • In re Curtis

Cited Statute

  • Bankruptcy Code
  • 28 U.S.C. §§ 157(b), 1334
  • Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 4001(a)(3)

Judge Name

David S. Jones

Passage Text

  • The Court therefore concludes that a balancing of the Sonnax factors demonstrates that 'cause' exists to lift the automatic stay to allow Michael E. Crane to pursue the Appeal. The Court reaches this conclusion with some trepidation, because it perceives Michael Crane to have engaged in delaying and possibly obstructionist tactics, and because Mr. Crane's litigious stance as against the estates of Rhoda and Joyce Crane has been troublingly contentious and possibly vexatious, as shown by orders and decisions issued by several courts.
  • In sum, then, Movants have demonstrated that 'cause' exists to lift the stay pursuant to Section 362(d)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code. To the extent this Decision and Order does not specifically address any arguments raised by Debtor, those arguments are rejected.
  • For the reasons explained further below, Movants' motion for relief from the automatic stay is granted and Debtor's objection is overruled. Applying the governing framework, the Court concludes that 'cause' exists to lift the automatic stay pursuant to Section 362(d)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code. Among other reasons, the Court concludes that lifting the automatic stay would not unduly interfere with the Debtor's bankruptcy case, especially because the Court recently by separate order granted Debtor's application for turnover of the premises at issue, and the balancing of harms that would result from either granting or denying the Motion weighs in favor of Michael E. Crane because without relief, he will be held to the outcome of a state-court ruling despite his stated disagreement with that ruling and what but for the automatic stay would be his ongoing right to appeal that judgment.