Skip to main content

Enforcing Money Judgments

Let's say you represent yourself in a lawsuit. You sue someone in small claims court or District Court, or even Supreme Court. Or you're a small firm, representing a plaintiff, and maybe the technicalities of enforcing judgments are outside of your comfort zone.

The facts and the law are on your side; there was a trial or a motion, and you win your case. You are entitled to money from the defendant. Maybe you've gotten so far as a getting piece of paper signed by a judge that says "Judgment".

Hooray! So then what?

Now you have to actually get your money from the defendant. That can be difficult if the person or company does not want to pay. That means the judgment will have to be enforced.

And if you don't know how to enforce a judgment, your piece of paper that says "Judgment" isn't worth a whole lot, even after all the trouble you went through to win your case.

That's where this office comes in. Enforcing judgments can be tricky, and it is an area filled with technicalities. You can actually do all kinds of things to enforce a judgment and even get information about the defendant's ability to pay the judgment, as long as you follow the rules to a "T".

If you have a judgment, where you are entitled to money, or you're a small firm who doesn't know this area of the law (or doesn't have the time to do this stuff, and it can take time), contact this office at 516-252-9500 or at greg@gcurrylaw.com.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Recent Cases: Appeals Court Reverses Lower Court in Slip and Fall

In a decision issued on March 18, 2015 , a New York appeals court reversed a lower court decision dismissing a slip and fall case. The plaintiff was a 12-year-old boy. He was injured when he slipped and fell on "loose and broken pieces of asphalt" as he was running towards an ice cream truck near an Ikea store in Brooklyn. There were two interesting things about the decision. First, like many slip and fall cases, the case turned on constructive notice--how long was the loose/broken asphalt on the ground before the accident so that the defendants should have seen it and corrected the dangerous condition? The appeals court said the defendants failed to show when they last cleaned or inspected the area, so they did not establish lack of constructive notice. The more interesting thing is that apparently the boy told staff at the hospital where he was taken that he tripped over his shoelaces. The defendants found this in the hospital records and basically said, "Ha! He di...
Post a Comment
Read more

Know Your Rights: New York's Consumer Protection Statute

Under New York law, there are several ways that consumers can recover damages (money) or other relief against businesses that ripped them off, deceived them, or otherwise treated them improperly. One of these ways is New York's Consumer Protection Statute (General Business Law § 349). Under GBL §349, a consumer can sue a business if he or she can show that the subject act or practice (1) was consumer-oriented; (2) was misleading in a material way; and (3) the consumer suffered injury as a result of the deceptive act. If successful, a consumer can recover their actual damages (money they lost), their reasonable attorney fees, and "treble" (triple) damages up to $1,000 (if the business acted willfully and knowingly in deceiving the consumer). The $1,000 cap on treble damages needs to be eliminated. It is no deterrent to businesses behaving badly. 
Post a Comment
Read more

Recent Developments: Lawsuit Against School District for a Bus Monitor Abusing a Special Needs Child

The parents of a child "who suffers from severe mental disabilities" sued the Beacon City School District, in Dutchess County, alleging that a bus monitor physically and mentally abused their child. The parents sued the School District for, among other things, assault, battery, and negligent supervision. The case went through the fact-finding phase (called "discovery"), and the School District made a motion to dismiss at least some of the claims. The motion was granted, but an appeals court reversed the lower court.  The appeals court first noted that  [s]chools have a duty to adequately supervise the students in their care, and may be held liable for foreseeable injuries proximately related to the absence of adequate supervision and  [t]he standard for determining whether the school has breached its duty is to compare the school's supervision and protection to that of a parent of ordinary prudence placed in the same situation and armed with the same...
Post a Comment
Read more