717 F.3d 266 (2nd Cir. 2013), 12-1857-cv, Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands v. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce

Docket Nº:12-1857-cv.
Citation:717 F.3d 266
Opinion Judge:PER CURIAM:
Party Name:Commonwealth of the NORTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CANADIAN IMPERIAL BANK OF COMMERCE, Garnishee-Appellee, William H. Millard, Defendant, The Millard Foundation, Intervenor.
Attorney:Michael S. Kim, Kobre & Kim LLP, New York, NY, Melanie L. Oxhorn, Ithaca, NY, for Plaintiff-Appellant. Scott D. Musoff (Timothy G. Nelson, Gregory A. Litt, on the brief), Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, New York, NY, for Garnishee-Appellee.
Judge Panel:Before: CABRANES, STRAUB and HALL, Circuit Judges.
Case Date:May 15, 2013
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 266

717 F.3d 266 (2nd Cir. 2013)

Commonwealth of the NORTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

CANADIAN IMPERIAL BANK OF COMMERCE, Garnishee-Appellee,

William H. Millard, Defendant,

The Millard Foundation, Intervenor.

No. 12-1857-cv.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

May 15, 2013

Argued: Aug. 22, 2012.

Page 267

Michael S. Kim, Kobre & Kim LLP, New York, NY, Melanie L. Oxhorn, Ithaca, NY, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Scott D. Musoff (Timothy G. Nelson, Gregory A. Litt, on the brief), Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, New York, NY, for Garnishee-Appellee.

Before: CABRANES, STRAUB and HALL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

This is an appeal from an order of the District Court for the Southern District of New York (Lewis A. Kaplan, Judge ) denying Plaintiff Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands' (" CNMI" ) motion for a turnover order under Rule 69 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and N.Y. CPLR § 5225(b), and granting an injunction pending appeal. After hearing oral argument, we certified to the New York Court of Appeals the following questions:

1. May a court issue a turnover order pursuant to N.Y. CPLR § 5225(b) to an entity that does not have actual possession or custody of a debtor's assets, but whose subsidiary might have possession or custody of such assets?

2. If the answer to the above question is in the affirmative, what factual considerations should a court take into account in determining whether the issuance of such an order is permissible?

N. Mar. I. v. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, et al., 693 F.3d 274, 275 (2d Cir.2012).

The New York Court of Appeals accepted certification. N. Mar. I. v. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, 19 N.Y.3d 1040, 954 N.Y.S.2d 2, 978 N.E.2d 594 (2012). The court answered the first question in the negative, holding that in order " for a court to issue a post-judgment turnover order pursuant to CPLR 5225(b) against a banking entity, that entity itself must have actual, not merely constructive, possession or custody of the assets sought. That is, it is not enough that the banking entity's subsidiary might have possession or custody of a judgment debtor's assets."

Page 268

N. Mar. I. v. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, No. 58, 21 N.Y.3d 55, __ N.Y.S.2d __, __, __ N.E.2d __, __, 2013 WL 1798585, slip op. at 1-2 (N.Y. Apr. 30, 2013). The court thus...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP