Source: http://www.courtstreetlaw.com/category/debt-collection/
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 10:18:36+00:00

Document:
debt collection Archives • Law Office of Richard A. Klass, Esq.
Enforcing Judgments Against Bank Accounts Held Outside N.Y.
In fact, several trial courts since Koehler have instead held by the traditionally well-settled rule that “in order to reach a particular bank account the judgment creditor must serve the office of the bank where the account is maintained.” See, e.g., Global Tech. v. Royal Bank of Can., 34 Misc.3d 1209(A) (Sup. Ct. New York Co. 2012), Parbulk II AS v Heritage Maritime, 35 Misc.3d 235 (Sup. Ct. New York Co. 2011). The Court of Appeals’ deliberate sidestepping1 the issue of the separate entity rule in Koehler may be the impetus for its most recent determination in Motorola Credit v. Standard Chartered Bank, decided on Oct. 23, 2014.
In Koehler, the plaintiff sought to enforce a domesticated foreign judgment as against the defendant by issuing a restraining notice to the Bank of Bermuda, which it asserted held stock on behalf of the defendant. The court established personal jurisdiction over the defendant based upon defendant’s willingness to subject itself to the court’s jurisdiction without objection. The court then determined that, based upon its in personam jurisdiction over the defendant, it can extend its reach to assets of the defendant, even when those assets are held outside of New York State, either in another state or another country. Koehler v. Bank of Bermuda, 12 N.Y.3d 533 (2009). In fact, the court in Koehler went so far as to hold that the broad language of CPLR Article 52 extends to the turnover of out-of-state assets held by a garnishee. Id. at 541.
Under New York law, there are several different ways in which a debtor’s assets can be reached; (a) attachment; (b) turnover proceeding; and (c) restraining notice/execution.
An attachment proceeding is a pre-judgment remedy involving the seizure of the defendant/debtor’s property so that they are no longer able to use the property in order to ensure satisfaction of a prospective judgment. Attachment proceedings in New York are governed by CPLR Article 62, and as stated in Koehler, enable a court to have jurisdiction over the property rather than the person. Koehler, 12 N.Y.3d at 539, (“It is a fundamental rule that in attachment proceedings, the res must be within the jurisdiction of the court issuing the process in order to confer the jurisdiction”).
A restraining notice or execution does not necessarily require court assistance or intervention. Once the court has issued a judgment, the judgment creditor may pursue collection of that judgment pursuant to the rules laid out in CPLR Article 52, including issuance of an income execution, a restraining notice upon a bank, or an execution issued to the sheriff to levy upon property owned by the judgment debtor.
1. “Notably absent from our decision in Koehler was any discussion of the separate entity rule.”Motorola Credit v. Standard Chartered Bank, No. 162, NYLJ 1202674400477 at *9 (Oct. 23, 2014).
Richard A. Klass is an attorney with the Law Office of Richard A. Klass in Brooklyn. Elisa S. Rosenthal is an associate of the firm.
Reprinted with permission from the November 20, 2014 edition of the New York Law Journal © 2014 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All rights reserved.
Richard A. Klass, Esq., maintains a law firm engaged in civil litigation in Brooklyn Heights, New York. He may be reached at (718) COURT-ST or e-ml to RichKlass@courtstreetlaw.com with any questions.
As reported today in the New York Times, there are increasing numbers of foreclosure cases in New York State where lenders may be unable to seize homes. Why? Because the State’s statute of limitations on foreclosure cases may be exceeded.
If you have a foreclosure case that has been dragging on for nearly six years, there may be relief on the horizon.
Does this sound similar to your situation? If so, and if you require legal representation, call my office for more information.
Once the creditor has obtained a Judgment from a court, one of the options for obtaining payment of the Judgment is to restrain funds of the debtor contained in an account.
The process is to serve a “restraining notice” upon the subject bank, as permitted by statute. In turn, the bank then holds the funds contained in accounts belonging to the judgment debtor pending further action on the part of the creditor. This restraint remains in effect upon the funds for a period of one year.
The next step of the creditor is to remove the restrained funds from the bank. This is done either through an Execution issued to a Sheriff or Marshal (since that person is deemed as “enforcement officer” able to obtain the funds), or through a “turn-over proceeding,” where the creditor begins a separate action against the debtor and the bank as a garnishee requesting that the court direct the garnishee/bank to turn over the restrained funds.
Once the restrained funds are delivered to the creditor through either of the above methods, the accounts of the debtor will continue to be restrained by the bank (where, in the event that new funds were deposited, they would be restrained as well) until the creditor issues a “release” letter to the bank or a Satisfaction of Judgment is filed by the creditor.
Where an account of the debtor is held jointly with another person, it is necessary to file a turn-over proceeding, as the court must determine the respective rights of the account-holders to the funds. One defense to the proceeding is that the debtor is a joint account-holder only for convenience purposes.
Once the creditor has obtained a Judgment from a court, the collection process has now begun. In the context of collecting the money due on the Judgment, it may be necessary to “docket” the Judgment in the County Clerk’s Office.
In each county of the State, there is a court of general jurisdiction called the “Supreme Court.” In some counties, towns, cities, and villages, there are lower courts (such as Civil Court, District Court, etc.). Judgments entered in those courts are not automatic liens upon any realty that the debtor may own in the county. Rather, a “Transcript of Judgment” must be obtained from the court and filed with the County Clerk to create the lien. Once docketed, the Transcript of Judgment will serve as notice to others that there is a lien upon any realty owned by the debtor; other parties are now aware that the lien must be paid according to its priority.
Judgments entered in a Supreme Court case are automatically docketed with the County Clerk.
Unlike New Jersey or some other states, which have state-wide recognition, the Judgment must be docketed by the filing of a Transcript of Judgment in each county in which the debtor has realty in order to create the lien.
The docketing of a Judgment is also essential when attempting to issue an Income Execution to a County Sheriff in another county (where, perhaps, the employer of a debtor is located). Another purpose of docketing a Judgment may be where the Judgment was entered in federal District Court and the creditor wants to use a Sheriff instead of a United States Marshall.
The Fee Dispute Resolution Program (22 NYCRR Section 137) was created to mandate arbitration of fee disputes between attorneys and their former clients in civil matters. It has been subject to differing opinions among different departments leading to divergent opinions on the issue of whether or not an arbitration is necessary when the former client fails to object the validity of the underlying fee.
In 2000, the Second Department determined in Scordio that when there is a fee dispute between an attorney and a former client, the attorney was not required to send notice to the former client informing them of their rights to arbitrate when there was no dispute or objection to the reasonableness of the attorney’s fees. Scordio v. Scordio, 270 A.D.2d 328 (2nd Dept. 2000).
The decision in Scordio would ordinarily lend to the notion that an attorney may pursue collection of his fees without notice to a client of his right to arbitration but the rules regarding arbitration of fee disputes were modified and expanded in 2002, and now lists exceptions to when a notice to a client of his right to arbitrate can be waived. In Wexler & Burkhart, the court held that a reading of the Rules in this way would “effectively eviscerate Part 137 of the Rules, a comprehensive scheme for the informal and expeditious resolution of fee disputes between attorneys and clients through arbitration and mediation.” Wexler & Burkart LLP v. Grant, 12 Misc.3d 1162(A) (Nassau Cty. 2006).
The court in Rotker determined that “the rules of the appellate division establish a clear public policy in favor of the arbitration of attorney-client fee disputes.” Rotker v. Rotker, 195 Misc.2d 768 (Westchester Cty. 2003). Rotker was a matrimonial case where the attorneys for the wife instituted a retainer lien against her for non-payment of her fees. The attorneys asserted that since the client had not disputed the fees, under Scordio, they were entitled to payment without arbitration. The court held that even if it was determined that counsel was not fired for cause, the attorneys were required to provide the client notice of her rights to arbitrate the dispute, with said notice given in writing. If the client then failed to avail herself of her right to arbitrate after 30 days of mailing the notice, the right to arbitration would be waived. Id at 790-791.
The court in Rotker went so far as to hold that the failure of former counsel to send the 30-day notice, regardless of whether or not there is a dispute, would mandate the dismissal of any action for unpaid counsel fees. Rotker at 791.
The position of the Wexler & Burkhart decision and the Rotker decision was most recently supported in Noel F. Caraccio, where the court held that regardless of whether there was an objection or dispute as to the fees when they were billed, the attorney was still required to send the 30-day notice of the right to arbitrate. Noel F. Caraccio PLLC v. Thomas, 29 Misc.3d 1230 (A) (City Ct., Rye 2010); Rotker at 791.
Thus, it is questionable as to whether Scordio remains good law, and as such, it is prudent to notify the former client of his rights to arbitrate the fee in order to prevent a dismissal of an attorney’s action for payment.
— Elisa S. Rosenthal, Esq.
Elisa S. Rosenthal, Esq. is an associate of the law firm of Richard A. Klass, Esq.. She practices primarily in the areas of commercial litigation, debt collection/enforcement of judgments, legal malpractice and real estate litigation. She may be reached by phone at (718) COURT-ST [(718) 268-7878)] or www.courtstreetlaw.com.
Once a Judgment has been entered in a court, there are various methods which may be utilized by the judgment creditor to collect the Judgment from the debtor.
Where the debtor owns real estate, a lien may be placed upon the property. This type of lien is referred to as a Judgment lien under Article 52 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules (CPLR).
The Judgment lien is placed upon real estate by the “docketing” of a Transcript of Judgment with the County Clerk’s Office. Once the Judgment is docketed or registered, the judgment creditor may issue an Execution to the Sheriff to levy and sell the real estate, or merely leave the lien against the property until the debtor sells or transfers the property (at which time, the Judgment will likely be paid from the proceeds at closing).
If the Judgment was obtained in the Supreme Court of the county in which the property is located, no further action is required to docket the lien.
If the Judgment was obtained in another court (such as the New York City Civil Court, federal court, Family Court, or District Court), that court will issue, for a fee, a Transcript of Judgment with a raised seal, which Transcript of Judgment will then be filed with the County Clerk’s Office, at which point the lien will be effective.
If the debtor owns real estate in a county different from the one in which the Judgment was entered, a Transcript of Judgment should issue from the County Clerk’s Office in which the Judgment was entered and be filed with the County Clerk’s Office in which the property is located to effectuate the lien.
Once a Judgment has been obtained against a debtor, an “Execution” may issue to a Sheriff or Marshal. An Execution is a legal document which directs the Sheriff or Marshal to levy upon certain assets of the debtor.
1. Property Execution: issues against personal property of any nature belonging to the debtor, including bank accounts, cars, shares of stock, equipment, etc.
2. Real Property Execution: issues against real estate owned by the debtor, permitting the sale of the real estate at auction.
3. Income Execution: issues against a debtor’s wages, permitting the garnishment of the debtor’s salary or compensation.
Each county of New York State has a Sheriff, who performs the above functions. Within the City of New York, a City Marshal may be selected by the creditor in lieu of a Sheriff (except for real estate sales). Some creditors prefer using a City Marshal instead of a Sheriff because City Marshals are not City employees, but rather work strictly upon a percentage of the amount collected. The perception is that City Marshals have more incentive to work harder because of this fee structure.
According to statute, the Sheriff/Marshal is entitled to collect a levy fee and “poundage” of 5% from the debtor on top of the Judgment amount as a fee.
In some situations, the Sheriff cannot levy upon property, where there may be title issues relating to the ownership of the property, at which time further legal proceedings may be necessary.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.