In Hotel 71 Metz Lender LLC v. Falor, 14 N.Y.3d 30, 926 N.E.2d 303 (2010), the Court of Appeals held that the Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion in appointing a receiver to administer defendants' "intangible personal property" consisting of "defendants' ownership/membership interests in various out-of-state business entities." Hotel 71, 14 N.Y.3d at 307. Plaintiff's attempt to characterize Stewart's interest in the equitable distribution award as "intangible personal property" is unavailing. The valuable assets to be sold pursuant to the court's equitable distribution order include luxury vehicles, a Swiss chalet and its contents, and a Bermuda estate and its contents. Unlike "ownership/membership interests in various out-of-state business entities," the assets subject to the equitable division award are not intangible, complex, and not readily marketable. Id at 317 (concluding that the "complexity of defendants' intangible ownership interests" and "lack of marketability of defendants' intangible property interests" warranted the appointment of a receiver). Furthermore, in Hotel 71, the Court of Appeals noted that there was concern about the defendants' "precarious financial condition" and an "identifiable risk" that defendants would "be unable to satisfy a future judgment."