Order | Filed: July 16, 2026
| Entered: July 16, 2026
Henderson
Bankruptcy Appeal (801) | New York Eastern
Order on Motion to Stay
ORDER: The Court is in receipt of Appellant Deutsche Bank National Trust Company's ("Appellant") motion 2 to stay judgment pending appeal.
District courts consider four factors when considering whether to impose a stay of bankruptcy judgment pending its appeal: "(1) whether the stay applicant has made a strong showing that [it] is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) whether the applicant will be irreparably injured absent a stay; (3) whether issuance of the stay will substantially injure the other parties interested in the proceeding; and (4) where the public interest lies." Shutterman v. Cadaner, No. 25-CV-04520, 2025 WL 3546651, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 11, 2025). The burden to show the existence of circumstances that justify a stay lies with the moving party. See id. (citing In re 461 7th Ave. Mkt., Inc., 623 B.R. 681, 688 (S.D.N.Y.)) While the first two factors are the most critical, failure to satisfy even one factor dooms a motion for a stay pending appeal. Id. (citations omitted).
The Court finds that Appellant has not met its burden to prove irreparable harm. Irreparable harm is "the principal requisite for the issuance of a [Rule 8007] stay." In re Koper, 560 B.R. 68, 74 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. 2016). The harm must be actual and imminent and cannot be purely remote nor speculative. Id. The crux of Appellant's argument as to the harm it will suffer if a stay is not imposed is that the judgment would allow Appellee to "sell the property to a third party without any means for [Appellant] to replace its lien on that property in the hands of a third party." (Mot. Stay 19, ECF No. 2.) However, Appellant offers no evidence to suggest that Appellee would sell the property absent a stay. Appellant does not argue that Appellee has retained a real estate agent or taken any other similar step that may indicate Appellee's willingness or even a desire to sell the property. Such conclusory statements are speculative and are insufficient to "establish a likelihood of irreparable harm." See Metropcs New York, LLC v. Riverhead Water Dist., No. 15-CV-6311, 2016 WL 373969, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 29, 2016) (citing Fox Ins. Co. v. Envision Pharm. Holdings, Inc., No. CV-09-0237, 2009 WL 790312, at *6 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 23, 2009)). Appellant also argues that if the Judgment is not stayed, Appellee will be able to pay off a lower amount owed that does not account for taxes and insurance that Appellant has paid but has yet to recover. (Mot. Stay 17-18.) Even if true, any such injury can fully be compensated with money judgment, and as such, is not irreparable harm. Borey v. Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, 934 F.2d 30, 34 (2d Cir. 1991) ("But, when a party can be fully compensated for financial loss by a money judgment, there is simply no compelling reason why the extraordinary equitable remedy of a preliminary injunction should be granted." (citation omitted)). The Court also finds Appellant's arguments regarding Appellee's financial status unavailing. While Appellant argues that Appellant's financial trouble may make recovery difficult, (Mot. Stay 21), surely the judgment awarding Appellant more than $1,600,000 alleviates such concerns regarding Appellee's financial status. Because Appellant has failed to demonstrate irreparable harm, a stay is not justified. See Shutterman, 2025 WL 3546651, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 11, 2025).
Accordingly, Appellant's motion 2 to stay judgment pending appeal is DENIED.
Ordered by Judge LaShann DeArcy Hall on 7/16/2026. (CG)