Brodsky v. N.Y.C. Campaign Fin. Bd.

• Decision Date: 20 June 2013
• Parties: In re Meryl BRODSKY, et al., Petitioners–Appellants, v. NEW YORK CITY CAMPAIGN FINANCE BOARD, Respondent–Respondent, Computershare, Garnishee.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

107 A.D.3d 544
971 N.Y.S.2d 265
2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 04686

In re Meryl BRODSKY, et al., Petitioners–Appellants,
v.
NEW YORK CITY CAMPAIGN FINANCE BOARD, Respondent–Respondent,
Computershare, Garnishee.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

June 20, 2013.

Busson & Sikorski, P.C., New York (Robert S. Sikorski of counsel), for appellants.

Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York (Paul T. Rephen of counsel), for respondent.

FRIEDMAN, J.P., DeGRASSE, RICHTER, CLARK, JJ.

[107 A.D.3d 544]Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Eileen A. Rakower, J.), entered July 16, 2010, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, in a turnover proceeding pursuant to CPLR 5225(b), directed the sale of [107 A.D.3d 545]stock held by petitioner judgment debtor Meryl Brodsky, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The turnover proceedings at issue on this appeal arise from an audit completed by respondent New York City Campaign Finance Board determining that petitioners were required to return $35,415 following the 2005 primary election. Petitioner Meryl Brodsky was a candidate for New

[971 N.Y.S.2d 266]

York City Council in the election, and formed an election committee, petitioner “Elect Meryl Brodsky to the City Council 2005” (Committee). That Committee participated in respondent's public financing matching funds program. At the end of the campaign, respondent conducted an audit of the Committee and determined that the Committee needed to return $35,415.

Petitioners filed the underlying article 78 petition challenging respondent's determination as arbitrary and capricious and arguing that the Committee's treasurer, petitioner Feisnot, was not personally liable for any repayments to respondent. In an order entered on or about June 27, 2007, the court denied the petition to set aside respondent's determination and ordered petitioners Brodsky and Committee to repay respondent. The court, however, found petitioner Feisnot was not personally liable for the repayment. Petitioners appealed to this Court and we affirmed (57 A.D.3d 449, 869 N.Y.S.2d 508 [1st Dept. 2008] ).

Petitioners Brodsky and Committee then returned $26,010 of the requested funds. However, when petitioners failed to repay the remaining amount, respondent, by an order to show cause, moved pursuant to CPLR 5225(b) for an order directing a garnishee, Computershare, to sell sufficient shares of Exxon–Mobil owned by Brodsky to pay the remaining...