Matter of Anderson Kill, P.C. v. Anderson Kill, P.C.

134 A.D.3d 552, 22 N.Y.S.3d 20
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedDecember 17, 2015
Docket16437 156153/14
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 134 A.D.3d 552 (Matter of Anderson Kill, P.C. v. Anderson Kill, P.C.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Matter of Anderson Kill, P.C. v. Anderson Kill, P.C., 134 A.D.3d 552, 22 N.Y.S.3d 20 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Opinion

*553 Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Michael D. Stallman, J.), entered February 11, 2015, denying the petition for a turnover order that would enable petitioner to enforce a judgment against its former client Sea Trade Maritime Corporation for unpaid legal fees, and dismissing the proceeding, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

“A special proceeding for turnover is the procedural device provided by [CPLR] article 52 for enforcement of a judgment against an asset of the judgment debtor in the possession or custody of a third person; such a third person is known as a garnishee” (JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v Motorola, Inc., 47 AD3d 293, 301 [1st Dept 2007]).

Here, pursuant to the subject escrow agreement, which petitioner drafted and was a party as escrow agent, the parties agreed that the disputed corporate assets were to be disbursed either (1) pursuant to jointly signed written instructions, or (2) upon a final nonappealable judicial determination of the intervenor’s ownership interest in the corporation and entitlement to any portion of the escrow funds, neither of which has occurred. Thus, even if CPLR 5225 (b) allowed for the release of the escrow funds, pursuant to CPLR 5240, which provides a court with substantial authority to order equitable relief, the turnover petition was properly denied. The parties drafted an escrow agreement intended to secure the sale proceeds for the benefit of the parties, and petitioner should not be permitted to circumvent that agreement. Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Acosta, Moskowitz and Richter, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Keawsri v. Ramen-ya Inc.
S.D. New York, 2022

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
134 A.D.3d 552, 22 N.Y.S.3d 20, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-anderson-kill-pc-v-anderson-kill-pc-nyappdiv-2015.