Kruglov v. Citibank

• Citation: 2022 NY Slip Op 50511 (U)
• Decision Date: 22 June 2022
• Docket Number: 2022-50511
• Parties: Dmitry Kruglov, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Citibank, Bank of America, Respondents-Respondents. Dmitry Kruglov, Petitioner-Appellant, Toyota Motor Credit Corporation, TD Bank, Respondents-Respondents.
• Court: United States State Supreme Court (New York)

2022 NY Slip Op 50511(U)

Dmitry Kruglov, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Citibank, Bank of America, Respondents-Respondents.

Dmitry Kruglov, Petitioner-Appellant, Toyota Motor Credit Corporation, TD Bank, Respondents-Respondents.

No. 2022-50511

Supreme Court of New York, First Department

June 22, 2022

Unpublished Opinion

In two unconsolidated postjudgment enforcement proceedings petitioner, as limited by his briefs, appeals from 1) an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (Dakota D. Ramseur, J.), entered July 17, 2018, which dismissed the contempt proceeding against respondent Citibank and directed respondents Bank of America and Toyota Motor Credit Corporation ("Toyota") to submit supplemental responses to petitioner's information subpoenas; 2) an order (same court and Judge) entered March 21, 2019, insofar as it denied his motion to renew and reargue the dismissal of the petition against Citibank; and 3) an order (same court and Judge), entered September 20 2019, which, after a finding of contempt, limited petitioner's award of fines to $613.45 against Toyota Motor Credit Corporation inclusive of costs, and $500 plus costs against Bank of America.

PRESENT: Hagler, J.P., Tisch, Michael, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Orders (Dakota D. Ramseur, J.), entered July 17, 2018 and September 20, 2019, affirmed, without costs. Appeal from order (Dakota D. Ramseur, J.), entered March 21, 2019, dismissed, without costs, as nonappealable.

Considering the facts and circumstances of each particular application (see Matter of Storm, 28 A.D.2d 290, 292 [1967]) Civil Court properly exercised its discretion in either granting in part or denying petitioner's various applications to punish respondents for contempt based upon their alleged failure to comply with information subpoenas. With respect to respondent Citibank, petitioner failed to demonstrate with clear and convincing evidence that Citibank refused or willfully neglected to obey the subpoenas (see CPLR 5251; Gray v Giarrizzo, 47 A.D.3d 765, 766 [2008]). To the contrary, Citibank complied with the subpoena addressed to it by providing, inter alia information concerning the judgment debtor's Wells Fargo Bank account.

With respect to the contempt findings against respondents Bank of America and Toyota, which are not challenged herein, the court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in fixing the appropriate remedy by imposing fines. Upon granting a civil contempt motion, "the fixing of the appropriate remedy... is addressed to the sound discretion of the motion court" (Collins...