Skip to main content

Enforcement of Money Judgments Are Not Usually This Titillating

From press accounts (I make no representation of the accuracy of anything in the press accounts):

A New York investment banker (Hugh Levey) worth $29 million has a judgment against him for $1.3 million for making a bad investment. The "judgment creditor" (the person or organization that has the judgment) is a company called Pensmore, which gave Mr. Levey the money to invest.

Once you have a money judgment against another party (called the "judgment debtor"), you can do things like restrain bank accounts and send restraining notices to other people who owe the judgment debtor money or may be giving the debtor money. The notice says you can't give any money to the judgment debtor, etc., because any such money should be used to satisfy the judgment. New York law gives judgment creditors very broad powers to look for money to satisfy judgments.

Apparently, Mr. Levey has not paid the judgment, which has now opened up aspects of his personal life that I'm sure he would have preferred to keep quiet. Pensmore claims it sent restraining notices to a Claire Gruppo, who may have been making attorney fee payments to Mr. Levey's divorce attorney for a divorce he's going through. Pensmore's lawyers say those payments are a violation of the restraining notice it sent her.

Because of all of this, it has come out that Mr. Levey has been having an affair with Ms. Gruppo, who is also his business partner. Pensmore has brought a motion against Ms. Gruppo for contempt for violating the restraining notice it sent.

I've been involved in numerous enforcements of money judgments over the years. They are usually not this interesting.

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Being Fired for Things an Employee Did On Their Own Time, Outside of Work: Legal or Not?

New York is an "at will" employment state, meaning that, in the absence of a contract, you can be fired at any time, for any reason, or for no reason at all, unless the reason is based on something like age, race, religion, disability, etc. (just a handful of categories). (Government employees have more protections than private-sector employees, such as First Amendment protections.) One of the few exceptions to the at-will employment rule is New York Labor Law §201-d. The statute is lengthy and has lots of caveats and qualifiers and defenses (for the employer). But the gist of § 201-d is that an employee can't be disciplined or fired (or not hired) for something they do on their own time, away from work, that is legal, and that is not against the employer's interests.  The statute and the reported cases mostly deal with "recreational" and "political" activities, and the cases can turn on whether something was a "recreational activity...
Post a Comment
Read more

Recent Case Developments: Employment Contract Enforceable Against Employer Even Though Not Signed

The plaintiff is a modeling scout. Defendant modeling agency decided to hire him as a modeling scout for $190,000/year, plus bonuses. An employment contract was prepared. One provision of the contact said that if the plaintiff were ever fired without cause, he would be entitled to 6-months severance ($95,000). The contract also said that it could be signed in counterparts. The plaintiff signed the contract on August 18, 2015 and emailed his signature to the modeling agency. One of the agency's board members emailed back, saying "Welcome aboard. We'll countersign over the next few days." But no one from the agency ever signed the contract. Nevertheless, the plaintiff began working as a modeling scout, and the agency paid him according to the contract. But after six months, the agency decided to terminate him, without cause. The agency then refused to pay him the $95,000 severance, and the plaintiff brought a lawsuit for breach of contract. The modeling agency m...
Post a Comment
Read more

Recent Case Developments: Contractor Entitled to be Paid For Extra Work Not Part of Original Contract

On September 12, 2013, the Town of Kent (Putnam County) entered into a contract with a contractor to build a sewer.  During construction, certain "conditions that were unexpected and unanticipated" arose, requiring the contractor to do "extra" work--things beyond the scope of work of the original contract. (The appeals court doesn't detail what this extra work was.) The contractor performed the extra work, totaling around $380,000 in additional costs. For reasons not stated by the appeals court, the Town refused to pay for this extra work, and the contractor eventually sued the Town in May, 2015.  The contractor moved for summary judgment in the lower court (a kind of mini-trial on paper), and the court awarded judgment in favor of the contractor for the $380,000.  The Town appealed, but the appeals court sided with the contractor, saying that even though this "extra" work was not within the scope of work of the original contract, the con...
Post a Comment
Read more