Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF PITTSBURGH, PA, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. PEMBROOKE HOLDINGS CORPORATION, et al., Defendants-Appellants. Baltic International USA, Intervenor-Appellant.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Gammerman, J.), entered April 24, 2002, which, inter alia, granted plaintiff's motion for the turnover to it of certain escrowed funds, unanimously affirmed, with costs.
Plaintiff's turnover motion was properly granted. The escrowed funds at issue represent the proceeds of the sale of certain stock, which stock was, pursuant to a settlement agreement between plaintiff and defendants Alston, Pembrooke and Pembrooke Calox, to be applied in partial satisfaction of the amount owed plaintiff under the settlement agreement. When the amount owed under the settlement agreement was not timely paid, plaintiff, as was its right under the settlement agreement, entered judgment against defendant Pembrooke Calox in the principal amount of $403,233.63 and thereafter made the present motion for the turnover of the escrowed funds in partial satisfaction of the judgment. Intervenor Baltic International opposes the turnover urging that the judgment in satisfaction of which the escrowed funds are sought should be vacated pursuant to CPLR 5015 and that it has a superior right to the escrowed funds. However, even if Baltic International has standing to seek vacatur of the judgment against Pembrooke Calox under CPLR 5015 as an “interested party,” it has made no showing warranting vacatur (see CPLR 5015[a][1] through [5] ). Baltic was a signatory to the settlement agreement, and while Baltic now claims a superior security interest in the stock sale proceeds at issue, no reference to any such interest was made in the settlement agreement. Indeed, any security interest Baltic may have had was terminated when, pursuant to the settlement agreement, the subject shares were delivered for liquidation to the agent designated by the debtor.
To the extent that defendants' remaining arguments are properly before us, they have been considered and found unavailing.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: October 21, 2003
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)