Court Opinion

ID: 9954318
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-25 21:11:16.39336+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:12:01.865519
License: Public Domain

Cohen Tauber Spievack & Wagner P.C. v Ringel
               2024 NY Slip Op 30897(U)
                     March 19, 2024
           Supreme Court, New York County
        Docket Number: Index No. 153525/2022
                  Judge: Arlene P. Bluth
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.
                                                                                                                     INDEX NO. 153525/2022
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 47                                                                                           RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/19/2024

                                   SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
                                             NEW YORK COUNTY
            PRESENT:             HON. ARLENE P. BLUTH                                            PART                              14
                                                                                      Justice
            ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X   INDEX NO.          153525/2022
                COHEN TAUBER SPIEVACK & WAGNER P.C.,
                                                                                                 MOTION DATE        08/08/20221
                                                         Petitioner,
                                                                                                 MOTION SEQ. NO.         001
                                                 -v-
                BENJAMIN RINGEL, BR LAKEWOOD, LLC                                                  DECISION + ORDER ON
                                                                                                         MOTION
                                                         Respondent.
            ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X

            The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 001) 1- 10, 11, 12, 13, 14,
            15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38
            were read on this motion to/for                                                 TURNOVER PROCEEDING                    .

                      The petition for a turnover is granted and the cross-motion is denied as described below.

            Background

                      Petitioner brings this proceeding for a turnover of respondent Ringel’s membership

            interest in respondent BR Lakewood, LLC (“BR”). Petitioner obtained a judgment against Ringel

            for $246,306.68 on March 1, 2016. Petitioner contends that no part of this judgment has been

            paid.

                      It explains that in connection with a separate proceeding between Ringel and his sister in

            New Jersey, petitioner discovered that Ringel admitted he was the sole owner of BR. Petitioner

            also observes that it started a separate action to set aside two transfers of 40% in BR and that

            Ringel’s current ownership interest in BR is 60%.

            1
              Although this proceeding was only transferred to the undersigned in the last few days, the Court recognizes that it
            has been pending for an absurdly long time before different judges, even though petitioner politely requested that its
            application be considered. On behalf of the court system, the Court apologizes for the lengthy delay in the
            resolution of this proceeding.
                153525/2022 COHEN TAUBER SPIEVACK & WAGNER P.C. vs. RINGEL, BENJAMIN ET AL                           Page 1 of 5
                Motion No. 001

                                                                           1 of 5
[* 1]
                                                                                                  INDEX NO. 153525/2022
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 47                                                                      RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/19/2024

                   Respondents cross-move to dismiss on the ground that BR is Ringel’s sole source of

            income and is therefore protected. They also observe that they have moved to vacate the

            judgment referenced in this petition and so, in the alternative, this proceeding should be stayed.

                   Ringel submits an affidavit in which he explains that he is the sole member of BR and

            that BR owns 50% of another entity called BCR Lakewood (“BCR”). He claims that he earns

            about $500,000 a year in compensation from BR for managing properties owned by BCR and

            that this is his only source of income.

                   In reply and in opposition to the cross-motion, petitioner contends that the Court should

            order a turnover of Ringel’s 60% interest in BR. Petitioner claims that the pending motion to

            vacate the judgment is not a basis upon which this Court should deny the instant petition.

                   With respect to the statutory exemption claimed by respondent Ringel, petitioner claims

            that asserted exemption only applies to earnings of the judgment debtor for his personal services.

            It points to filings from New Jersey actions which petitioner claims shows that an outside

            management company (called Affiliated Management) actually runs the properties and that

            Ringel has been enjoined from running these properties.

                   Petitioner observes that this makes any income derived from BR “passive income” and

            therefore not subject to the exemption upon which he relies. It argues that any earnings Ringel

            receives is based on BR’s ownership of BCR Lakewood and are distributions, not income for

            personal services.

            Discussion

                   This motion was marked submitted on August 8, 2022 before a different judge. In the

            many intervening months, much has changed. Ringel’s motion to vacate the underlying

            judgment was denied (NYSCEF Doc. No. 153 in Index No. 152531/2014). It does not appear

             153525/2022 COHEN TAUBER SPIEVACK & WAGNER P.C. vs. RINGEL, BENJAMIN ET AL           Page 2 of 5
             Motion No. 001

                                                          2 of 5
[* 2]
                                                                                                  INDEX NO. 153525/2022
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 47                                                                       RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/19/2024

            that this decision was appealed (no notice of appeal appears on the NYSCEF docket). That

            moots respondents’ request for a stay of this proceeding as the judgment against him remains in

            effect.

                      Therefore, the only remaining issue is the extent of the charging order to be awarded to

            petitioner as there is indisputably a judgment in its favor against Ringel that has not yet been

            satisfied. Moreover, there is no question that Ringel has an interest in BR.

                      CPLR 5205 exempts certain property from the enforcement efforts of a judgment

            creditor. Here, the exemption in dispute is the exemption for income. “Income exemptions. The

            following personal property is exempt from application to the satisfaction of a money judgment,

            except such part as a court determines to be unnecessary for the reasonable requirements of the

            judgment debtor and his dependents. . . 2. ninety per cent of the earnings of the judgment debtor

            for his personal services rendered within sixty days before, and at any time after, an income

            execution is delivered to the sheriff or a motion is made to secure the application of the judgment

            debtor's earnings to the satisfaction of the judgment” (CPLR 5205[d][2]).

                      “[T]he judgment debtor, bore the burden of proving that the funds at issue were exempt

            as earnings for personal services under CPLR 5205(d)(2)” (Swig v Properties Asset Mgt.

            Services, LLC, 85 AD3d 427, 428 [1st Dept 2011]).

                      Here, Ringel, the judgment debtor, failed to meet his burden. He claims that he receives

            about $500,000 in compensation from BR “for his personal services managing the Properties”

            (NYSCEF Doc. No. 13). Unfortunately, petitioner showed in reply that this is simply not the

            case by submitting an order from a New Jersey action filed by Ringel’s sister against him in

            which the Court appointed a management company to manage the properties (NYSCEF Doc.

            No. 29). Based on this order, the Court is unable to find that the income Ringel receives from

             153525/2022 COHEN TAUBER SPIEVACK & WAGNER P.C. vs. RINGEL, BENJAMIN ET AL            Page 3 of 5
             Motion No. 001

                                                           3 of 5
[* 3]
                                                                                                   INDEX NO. 153525/2022
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 47                                                                       RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/19/2024

            BR is for “personal services” as required under the statute. Instead, as petitioner contends, this

            money appears to be merely passive income rather than income earned for any services provided

            to BR.

                     Moreover, Ringel did not expound upon the personal services he provides or include any

            documentation to substantiate his claims. Instead, he includes a footnote observing that he could

            disclose tax returns to the Court for in-camera inspection. But that is not sufficient. Ringel

            needed to include relevant tax returns or some other financial information in order to meet his

            burden of providing that these funds are exempt under the CPLR. As petitioner pointed out in

            reply, Ringel did not cite any basis for the proposition that he could submit critical and relevant

            evidence on an ex parte basis in a turnover proceeding. Ringel could have easily included these

            records under seal or with pertinent redactions; but the Court finds that a vague reference to tax

            returns is not a basis to compel the Court to deny the petition or do an in-camera review. In fact,

            Ringel does not even allege what these tax returns would show. Put another way, a party cannot

            meet his burden by offering to show documents in secret to the judge.

                     Petitioner demands that Ringel be ordered to turn over his 60% interest in BR (petitioner

            contends that 40% is held in a trust for his children). That relief is therefore granted.

                     Accordingly, it is hereby

                     ADJUDGED that the petition is granted; and it is further

                     ORDERED that respondent BR Lakewood LLC is directed, upon receipt of a certified copy

            of this order and judgment, to turn over to the petitioner all documents necessary to transfer and

            assign judgment debtor Benjamin Ringel’s interest in BR Lakewood LLC to petitioner within 14

            days of receipt of a certified copy of this order and judgment; and it is further

             153525/2022 COHEN TAUBER SPIEVACK & WAGNER P.C. vs. RINGEL, BENJAMIN ET AL             Page 4 of 5
             Motion No. 001

                                                           4 of 5
[* 4]
                                                                                                      INDEX NO. 153525/2022
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 47                                                                            RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/19/2024

                    ORDERED that petitioner is entitled to costs and disbursements as awarded by the Clerk

            upon presentation of proper papers therefor.

                   3/19/2024                                                            $SIG$
                      DATE                                                      ARLENE P. BLUTH, J.S.C.
             CHECK ONE:              X   CASE DISPOSED                  NON-FINAL DISPOSITION

                                         GRANTED             DENIED     GRANTED IN PART              X     OTHER

             APPLICATION:                SETTLE ORDER                   SUBMIT ORDER

             CHECK IF APPROPRIATE:       INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN     FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT              REFERENCE

             153525/2022 COHEN TAUBER SPIEVACK & WAGNER P.C. vs. RINGEL, BENJAMIN ET AL                  Page 5 of 5
             Motion No. 001

                                                           5 of 5
[* 5]