Provides that leave of court shall only be required for serving a subsequent notice of a restraining order when such order is served within a twelve month period of another notice.
NEW YORK STATE ASSEMBLY MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF LEGISLATION submitted in accordance with Assembly Rule III, Sec 1(f)
 
BILL NUMBER: A4309
SPONSOR: Brennan
 
TITLE OF BILL: An act to amend the civil practice law and rules, in
relation to the serving of more than one notice of a restraining order
 
PURPOSE OR GENERAL IDEA OF BILL: To amend §5222(c) of the CPLR regard-
ing restraining notices. As the law presently stands, leave of the court
is required before a second restraining notice may be served upon the
same judgment upon the same entity. This bill would amend that
restriction to any 12-month period.
 
JUSTIFICATION: Standard collection practice is to serve a combined
information subpoena with a restraining notice in one document on banks
and other financial institutions to determine whether they are in
possession of any property owned or controlled by a judgment debtor.
Thus, if at the time the subpoena is received by the bank there are
leviable assets of the debtor, which are disclosed by the bank in
response to the subpoena's accompanying questionnaire, those assets are
simultaneously restrained for a period of one year. This disables the
judgement debtor from removing or secreting the located assets.
As the law presently stands, leave of the court is required before a
second restraining notice upon the same judgment is served upon the same
entity. This makes it extremely difficult for a judgment creditor to
locate assets.
This bill would strike a balance between the needs of judgment creditors
to search for leviable assets and needs of third parties, including
banks and financial institutions, to be free of unnecessarily repetitive
service of restraining notices.
 
PRIOR LEGISLATIVE HISTORY:
A7312 of 2003-2004; A6953 of 2005-06 - Passed Assembly
A5994 of 2007-08 - passed Assembly
A4965 - 2009-10; A4926 of 2011-12 - in Codes
 
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS TO STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT: None.
 
EFFECTIVE DATE: Immediately upon enactment.