Comments on Enforcement of Judgments

SUMMARY

The New York City Bar Association’s Council on Judicial Administration (“CJA”), State Courts of Superior Jurisdiction Committee (“State Courts”), and Litigation Committee submitted comments to the Office of Court Administration in response to a request for public comment on  a proposed rule change to amend 22 NYCRR § 202.70(c)(5) to clarify that the Commercial Division can enforce judgments arising from cases decided by it. CJA and the Litigation Committee support the proposed change, while State Courts believes that clarification and/or consideration of a number of issues is needed before it can take a position on the proposed change. For example, State Courts believes: (i) it is still unclear whether the monetary threshold must be met for a separate enforcement proceeding; (ii) if not, perhaps it should be up to the Court’s discretion to accept a separate enforcement proceeding (e.g., a turnover proceeding for $20,000); and (iii) it is unclear whether a party would have the right to appeal a decision granting or denying the assignment of a separate proceeding to the Commercial Division.

REPORT

By Email

David Nocenti, Esq.
Office of Court Administration
25 Beaver Street, 10th Floor
New York, NY 10004
rulecomments@nycourts.gov

Re: New York City Bar Association Response to Request for Public Comment on a proposal to amend 22 NYCRR § 202.70(c)(5) to clarify that the Commercial Division can enforce judgments arising from cases decided by the Commercial Division

Dear Mr. Nocenti:

We write to provide comments with respect to the Request for Public Comment on a proposal to amend 22 NYCRR § 202.70(c)(5) to clarify that the Commercial Division can enforce judgments arising from cases decided by the Commercial Division.

The New York City Bar Association’s Council on Judicial Administration (“CJA”), State Courts of Superior Jurisdiction Committee (“State Courts”), and Litigation Committee (“Litigation”) have considered and discussed the proposed rule change. CJA and Litigation support the proposed rule change, while State Courts believes that clarification and/or consideration of a number of issues is needed before it can take a position on the proposed rule change. For example, State Courts believes: (i) it is still unclear whether the monetary threshold must  be met for a separate enforcement proceeding; (ii) if not, perhaps it should be up to the Court’s discretion to accept a separate enforcement proceeding (e.g., a turnover proceeding for $20,000); and (iii) it is unclear whether a party would have the right to appeal a decision granting or denying the assignment of a separate proceeding to the Commercial Division.

Thank you for considering our comments. If you believe that it would be beneficial, we would be happy to discuss these comments with you further.

Sincerely,

Fran Hoffinger, Chair
Council on Judicial Administration

Cassandra Porsch, Chair
Litigation Committee

Amy D. Carlin, Chair
State Courts of Superior Jurisdiction