Friday, June 15, 2018

Case of the Day: B&M Kingstone, LLC v. Mega Int'l Commercial Bank Ltd., 2018 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1515 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Apr. 25, 2018)


Plaintiff is a judgment creditor of a Florida state court judgment rendered in 2003, valued $39 million at the time and currently worth $73 million. The judgment debtor, allegedly, owns a property in Panama for which the defendant Taiwanese bank (with a branch in New York) holds the mortgage. The plaintiff previously served deposition subpoenas to the bank, which was quashed. Subsequently, the New York State Department of Financial Services found the bank in violation of anti-money laundering rules. The plaintiff then served subpoenas again. The defendant moved to quash.

The court found that the intervening event of the NY DFS enforcement action was sufficient to establish the defendant may be holding relevant information. The court, however, denied the plaintiff's motion for contempt.


The lesson here is just how broad the discovery reach is for a judgment creditor. Based on the facts adduced in the opinion, it appears unlikely that the defendant bank is holding any property of the judgment debtor upon which the plaintiff may execute. Yet an intervening government enforcement action is enough to renew the subpoena that was previously denied.

No comments:

Post a Comment