OPINIONPetitioner BSH Hausgerate GMBH (“BSH” or the “Petitioner”) has moved under Fed. R. Civ. P. 66 and New York C.P.L.R. §5228(a) for the appointment of a receiver to administer, collect, and sell the real property owned by Respondent Jak Kamhi (“Kamhi” or the “Respondent”) located at 15 West 53rd Street, Apt. 32B, New York, NY 10019 (the “Property”), which is currently secured by an Order of Attachment. See ECF No. 66. Based upon the conclusions set forth below, the motion is granted. The Court-ordered receiver is Stuart N. Siegel, of Engel & Volkers New York Real Estate LLC.I. Prior ProceedingsBackground on the parties, their arbitration agreements, the foreign arbitration process before a panel of three arbitrators (the “Arbitral Tribunal”), the Final Award, and confirmation of the Final Award are set forth in this Court’s October 18, 2017 Opinion (the “October Opinion”), and its March 02, 2018 Opinion (the “March Opinion”), See BSH Hausgerate, GMBH v. Kamhi, No. 17 Civ. 5776 (RWS), 2017 WL 4712226, at *1-*2 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 18, 2017); BSH Hausgerate, GMBH v. Kamhi, 291 F. Supp. 3d 437 (S.D.N.Y. 2018). Familiarity with the above is assumed. The following facts are presented only as necessary to resolve the instant motion.On October 2, 2003, BSH and Kamhi entered into a Share Sale and Purchase Agreement, under which BSH purchased shares in BSH Profilo Elektrikli Gerecler Sanayii A.S. (the “SPA-BSH”). See Declaration of Nicholas M. Buell dated July 28, 2017 (“Buell July 28 Decl.”), Ex. A, Dkt. No. 10. The SPA-BSH contained an agreement to arbitrate disputes through the International Chamber of Commerce’s International Court of Arbitration (the “ICC”) and under the ICC’s Rules of Arbitration (the “ICC Rules”). Id., Ex. A,10.On October 7, 2003, Kamhi also signed a separate Share and Sale Purchase Agreement with another party (the “SPA-DB” and, together with the SPA-BSH, the “Agreements”), and to which BSH was not a party. See id. Ex. B. Like the SPA-BSH, the SPA-DB also contained an agreement to arbitrate disputes before the ICC and under the ICC Rules. See id., Ex. B5.On October 7, 2013, Kamhi, one of five claimants (the “Claimants”), submitted a Request for Arbitration to the ICC. See id., Exs. C, E1 (defining the five claimants as “Claimants”). In the arbitration, Claimants sought monetary and non-monetary relief based on the theory that the termination of a distributorship agreement in 2008 (the “DA”), to which BSH was not a party, triggered an automatic rescission that terminated the SPA-BSH; accordingly, Claimants requested either that BSH return its SPA-BSH shares or pay damages for allegedly causing the breach. See id., Exs. C, E
143-47. On January 15, 2014, BSH filed its Answer to the Request for Arbitration, consenting to the ICC’s jurisdiction. See id., Exs. D
