Potter v. MacLean
| Citation | 75 A.D.3d 686,904 N.Y.S.2d 551 |
| Parties | Rebecca POTTER, Respondent, v. Daniel MacLEAN, Appellant, et al., Defendant. |
| Decision Date | 01 July 2010 |
| Court | New York Supreme Court Appellate Division |
75 A.D.3d 686
Rebecca POTTER, Respondent,
v.
Daniel MacLEAN, Appellant, et al., Defendant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.
July 1, 2010.
Catherine E. Stuckart, Binghamton, for appellant.
Schlather, Stumbar, Parks & Salk, Ithaca (Diane V. Bruns of counsel), for respondent.
Before: CARDONA, P.J., MERCURE, MALONE JR., KAVANAGH and EGAN JR., JJ.
KAVANAGH, J.
Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Mulvey, J.), entered August 13, 2009 in Tompkins County, which denied defendant Daniel MacLean's motion to, among other things, quash and vacate a restraining notice and information subpoena issued by the Tompkins County Support Collections Unit.
Plaintiff and defendant Daniel MacLean (hereinafter defendant) were married in 1999 and have two children (born in 2001 and 2003). After their separation, a court order was issued in 2005 requiring defendant to pay $800 per month in child support, plus $200 in monthly maintenance to plaintiff. He was ultimately found to have willfully violated that order and, in 2007 when a divorce action was commenced, defendant was found to owe more than $20,000 in arrears on this obligation. Defendant subsequently retained the law firm of Thaler & Thaler to represent him in the divorce action and paid them a $15,000 advance on their fee. Later, the amount that defendant owed on his support and maintenance obligation had increased to $33,000 and, in an effort to satisfy that arrearage, the Tompkins County Support Collections Unit served a
Defendant argues that the retainer fee held by Thaler & Thaler is not subject to restraint because these funds were used to ensure that he has legal representation in the divorce action. However, CPLR 5222(a) provides that a restraining notice may be issued upon any person, except for a judgment debtor's employer, and funds held in escrow for the purpose of retaining
Moreover, funds held by an attorney as a retainer for legal services to be rendered have been found to be subject to a preattachment restraining order...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
M.M. v. T.M.
...counsel. In support of her claim that the husband still holds an interest in the deposited funds, the wife relies on Potter v. MacLean, 75 A.D.3d 686, 904 N.Y.S.2d 551 (3rd Dept.2010). In that case, the husband owed more than $20,000 in arrears under a child support and maintenance order. H......
-
M.M. v. T.M.
...counsel. In support of her claim that the husband still holds an interest in the deposited funds, the wife relies on Potter v. MacLean, 75 A.D.3d 686, 904 N.Y.S.2d 551 (3rd Dept.2010). In that case, the husband owed more than $20,000 in arrears under a child support and maintenance order. H......
-
Hughes v. Gallup-Hughes
...to counsel in a matrimonial action ( see Matter of Smiley, 36 N.Y.2d 433, 439, 369 N.Y.S.2d 87, 330 N.E.2d 53 [1975]; Potter v. MacLean, 75 A.D.3d 686, 687, 904 N.Y.S.2d 551 [2010] ) and pro bono assignment of counsel is discretionary ( see Matter of Smiley, 36 N.Y.2d at 441, 369 N.Y.S.2d 8......
-
Avigdor v. Avigdor
... ... who know about the escrow funds" (Freedman v ... Hason, 155 A.D.3d at 832, citing Potter v ... MacLean, 75 A.D.3d 686 [3d Dept 2010] and Koroleski ... v Badler, 32 A.D.2d 810 [2d Dept 1969]). Here, the ... escrow funds remained in ... ...