Oil City Petroleum Co. v. Fabac Realty Corp.
Cases that cite this one
7 later published cases cite this decision.
- Neshewat v. Salem (District Court, S.D. New York 2005)
- Matter of First Am. Tit. Ins. Co. v. Cohen (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2018)
- Buckeye Retirement Co. v. Quattrocchi (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
- Banco Popular North America v. Philian Designs LLC (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2008)
- In re MDJ 20th Street v. Picheny (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2007)
- Rozales v. Pegalis & Wachsman, P. C. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1987)
- Gelbard v. Esses (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1983)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
Memorandum.
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.
The petition for turnover relief pursuant to CPLR 5225 and CPLR 5227 was properly dismissed. These sections authorize a special proceeding to be commenced by the judgment creditor against "a person in possession or custody of money or other personal property in which the judgment debtor has an interest, or * * * a person who is a transferee of money or other personal property from the judgment debtor, where it is shown that the judgment debtor is entitled to the possession of such property or that the judgment creditor’s rights to the property are superior to those of the transferee” (CPLR 5225, subd [b]), or "any person who it is shown is or will become indebted to the judgment debtor” (CPLR 5227). Here, none of these situations is present.
The record reveals that respondent Bharat Apartments purchased two parcels of realty from the judgment debtor prior to the commencement of this proceeding. There is no allegation that any part of the purchase price is still owing from Bharat to the judgment debtor, nor is there any evidence in the record that the judgment debtor assigned any leasehold interest it may have had to Bharat. In short, it appears that the judgment debtor divested itself completely of all interest in the properties and, under these circumstances, it cannot be said that the judgment debtor retained any interest whatsoever in the rents coming due Bharat. For this reason alone, the petition must be dismissed inasmuch as a turnover proceeding pursuant to CPLR 5225 and CPLR 5227 simply does not lie.
In light of our disposition, we need not address the other points raised by the parties.
Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Meyer concur.
Order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.