Publication Date
2013
Journal
Albany Law Review
Abstract
New York is virtually unique in permitting lawyers to issue court orders restraining debtors and third parties from conveying away any assets that could be used to satisfy a money judgment. In effect, these orders command the recipient to do nothing, whereas a turnover or garnishment orders the recipient to do something — pay the creditor or sheriff or surrender illiquid property to the sheriff. The weakness and strength of this debt collection tool is assessed at length. The Article also analyzes in detail New York’s Exempt Income Protection Act, enacted in 2008 to force banks to protect the exempt bank accounts of social security recipients.
Volume
77
Issue
4
First Page
1489
Last Page
1642
Publisher
Albany Law School
Keywords
debt collection, civil procedure, garnishment
Disciplines
Banking and Finance Law | Bankruptcy Law | Law | Law and Society | Legal Remedies | Securities Law
Recommended Citation
David G. Carlson,
Critique of Money Judgment Part Three: Restraining Notices,
77
Alb. L. Rev.
1489
(2013).
https://larc.cardozo.yu.edu/faculty-articles/239
Included in
Banking and Finance Law Commons, Bankruptcy Law Commons, Law and Society Commons, Legal Remedies Commons, Securities Law Commons