Court Opinion

ID: 9952477
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-19 20:09:26.765566+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:39:50.294781
License: Public Domain

Law Office of Mark S. Helweil v Karambelas
               2024 NY Slip Op 30807(U)
                     March 13, 2024
           Supreme Court, New York County
        Docket Number: Index No. 159060/2018
                  Judge: Joel M. Cohen
Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip
 Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York
 State and local government sources, including the New
  York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service.
 This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official
                       publication.
  FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/13/2024 04:45 PM                                                                     INDEX NO. 159060/2018
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 233                                                                                            RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/13/2024

            SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
            COUNTY OF NEW YORK: COMMERCIAL DIVISION PART 03M
            -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------X

             THE LAW OFFICE OF MARK S. HELWEIL, MARK S.                                            INDEX NO.         159060/2018
             HELWEIL,

                                                         Plaintiffs,                               MOTION DATE        12/18/2023

                                                -v-                                                MOTION SEQ. NO.        008

             ANDREA KARAMBELAS,
                                                                                                    DECISION + ORDER ON
                                                         Defendant.                                       MOTION

            -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------X

            HON. JOEL M. COHEN:

            The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 008) 219, 220, 221, 222,
            223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230, 231, 232
            were read on this motion to/for            COMPEL POST-JUDGMENT DISCLOSURE/CONTEMPT .

                      The Law Office of Mark S. Helweil and Mark S. Helweil (together, “Plaintiffs”) move to

            compel post-judgment disclosure, pursuant to Plaintiffs’ service of (1) a post-judgment

            information subpoena and (2) a notice of deposition upon Defendant Andrea Karambelas.

            Plaintiffs also move for contempt, alleging Defendant failed to comply with a properly served

            information subpoena. For the reasons stated on the record after oral argument on February 9,

            2024 (NYSCEF 232), as further described below, the motion is granted in part.

                1. Motions to Compel

                      CPLR 5223 permits a judgment creditor to “compel disclosure of all matter relevant to

            the satisfaction of the judgment, by serving upon any person a subpoena, which . . . shall state

            that false swearing or failure to comply with the subpoena is punishable as a contempt of court”

            (see also Gryphon Domestic VI, LLC v GBR Info. Servs., Inc., 29 AD3d 392, 393 [1st Dept

            2006]). Under CPLR 2308(b)(1), the issuer of a subpoena “may move in the supreme court to

             159060/2018 LAW OFFICE OF MARK S. vs. KARAMBELAS, ANDREA                                                  Page 1 of 4
             Motion No. 008

                                                                           1 of 4
[* 1]
  FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/13/2024 04:45 PM                                                INDEX NO. 159060/2018
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 233                                                                     RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/13/2024

            compel compliance.” The Court must determine whether “the subpoena was authorized,” and, if

            so, “it shall order compliance . . . .” (id.).

                    CPLR 5224(a)(3) notes that information subpoenas should be

                            accompanied by a copy and original of written questions
                            and a prepaid, addressed return envelope. Service . . . may
                            be made by registered or certified mail, return receipt
                            requested. Answers shall be made in writing under oath by
                            the person upon whom served, if an individual . . . . Each
                            question shall be answered separately and fully and each
                            answer shall refer to the question to which it responds.
                            Answers shall be returned together with the original of the
                            questions within seven days after receipt.

                    Plaintiffs also move to compel a deposition under Article 31 of the CPLR. CPLR

            3101(a) delimits the scope of disclosure to encompass “all matter material and necessary in the

            prosecution or defense of an action.” Under CPLR 3124, “[i]f a person fails to respond to or

            comply with any request, notice, interrogatory, demand, question or order under this article, . . .

            the parting seeking disclosure may move to compel compliance or a response.” CPLR

            5224(a)(1) provides for service of “a subpoena requiring attendance for the taking of a deposition

            upon oral or written questions at a time and place named therein.” Ten days’ notice is required

            before the deposition (CPLR 5224[c]).

                    The information subpoena indicates it was accompanied by a “prepaid addressed return

            envelope” and “two copies of” the subpoena (NYSCEF 221). Plaintiffs include a printout of the

            certified mail tracking number destined for zip code 10005, which matches defense counsel’s

            office address (NYSCEF 223; 221). They also include an affidavit of service from July 2023,

            attesting to the certified mailing of the information subpoena to defendant’s last two known

            addresses and counsel’s address (NYSCEF 221). A second service by mailing was made

            thereafter in August 2023 and left with an individual in the 10028 zip code (NYSCEF 225; 226).

             159060/2018 LAW OFFICE OF MARK S. vs. KARAMBELAS, ANDREA                              Page 2 of 4
             Motion No. 008

                                                             2 of 4
[* 2]
  FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/13/2024 04:45 PM                                                     INDEX NO. 159060/2018
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 233                                                                          RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/13/2024

            Similarly, they emailed the subpoena to defense counsel on two occasions (NYSCEF 222; 224).

            Accordingly, compliance with the requirements of CPLR 2308 has been shown and the motion

            to compel is granted.

                    However, the requested deposition cannot be compelled on the current record. Plaintiffs

            sought the deposition under Article 31, which applies to depositions during the course of the

            litigation itself. A deposition in connection with post-judgment proceedings should be sought by

            subpoena under Article 52. Accordingly, the motion to compel as to the Notice of Deposition is

            denied without prejudice to a subsequent motion if Plaintiffs subpoena Defendant for deposition

            and she fails to comply. Given her prior failures to comply with proper post-judgment discovery

            requests, the Court strongly urges Defendant to sit for deposition without the need for a motion.

                2. Motion for Contempt

                    Under CPLR 5251, “[r]efusal or willful neglect of any person to obey a subpoena . . .

            issued . . . pursuant to this title . . . shall . . . be punishable as a contempt of court.” A party

            subject to an information subpoena has seven days after receipt to respond (CPLR 5224[a][3]).

            As noted above, the requirements for the post-judgment information subpoena, but not the

            deposition, have been met. The subpoena was first served in July 2023, and this motion was

            filed on December 12, 2023 (NYSCEF 219).

                    Defendant, who attended the hearing with counsel on February 9, 2024, did not file

            opposition papers to the instant motion, and did not respond to the subpoena before February 5,

            2024. During oral argument, Defendant and her counsel asserted no viable defenses to contempt.

            Plaintiffs have met their burden of proving compliance with the requirements of the information

            subpoena, and there is no evidence of any meritorious defense for Defendant’s failure to properly

            respond. Therefore, the contempt motion is granted.

             159060/2018 LAW OFFICE OF MARK S. vs. KARAMBELAS, ANDREA                                   Page 3 of 4
             Motion No. 008

                                                             3 of 4
[* 3]
  FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/13/2024 04:45 PM                                                      INDEX NO. 159060/2018
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 233                                                                             RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/13/2024

                    Accordingly, it is

                    ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ motion to compel disclosure is granted in part insofar as it

            pertains to the information subpoena, and denied as to the notice of deposition without prejudice

            to a subsequent motion to compel a deposition if Plaintiffs properly serve a post-judgment

            deposition subpoena; it is further

                    ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ motion for contempt is granted; it is further

                    ORDERED that, as stated at the February 9, 2024 hearing, the Defendant was required

            to provide complete responses to the information subpoena within thirty (30) days of the

            February 9 Hearing; it is further

                    ORDERED that any objections by Defendant to the requests for information contained

            in the subpoena, except for attorney-client privilege, are waived; and it is further

                    ORDERED that Plaintiffs shall recover the costs and fees reasonably incurred in

            connection with the instant motion, including reasonable attorneys’ fees, upon the submission of

            an application therefor, including supporting documentation, within fourteen (14) days of the

            entry of this Order.

                    This constitutes the Decision and Order of the Court.

                    3/13/2024
                      DATE                                                            JOEL M. COHEN, J.S.C.
             CHECK ONE:                  X   CASE DISPOSED                    NON-FINAL DISPOSITION

                                             GRANTED             DENIED   X   GRANTED IN PART             OTHER

             APPLICATION:                    SETTLE ORDER                     SUBMIT ORDER

             CHECK IF APPROPRIATE:           INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN       FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT       REFERENCE

             159060/2018 LAW OFFICE OF MARK S. vs. KARAMBELAS, ANDREA                                   Page 4 of 4
             Motion No. 008

                                                              4 of 4
[* 4]