Enforcing Texas Judgement in New York for International Clients

The attorneys at Pastore & Dailey recently claimed a victory with respect to opposing a joint motion to dismiss and motion for summary judgment in New York Supreme Court (Kings County).  In that matter, Pastore & Dailey’s clients successfully secured a judgment for the client (a limited liability company whose members reside in Israel) in excess of $4MM in a Texas state court against a now defunct company.  Our attorneys successfully domesticated that judgment in the New York Supreme Court and commenced an action against a party who owes money to the judgment debtor (the defunct company).  After the commencement of the action, our attorneys successfully negotiated that a large sum of money be held in escrow by the defendant while the New York action was pending.  Said funds came out of the sale of commercial property in New York City, which funds our clients claim to be entitled to as the judgment creditor.  The defendant simultaneously moved to dismiss and for summary judgment claiming that Article 52 of the New York CPLR was the exclusive method to collect on a prior judgment and because the sale of the property did not create a cause of action for unjust enrichment and the creation of a constructive trust.  While Article 52 is the primary means to collect on a judgment, our attorneys successfully argued that Article 52 is not the exclusive means upon which to collection on a judgment and furthermore successfully argued that the sale of the property created a colorable cause of action for unjust enrichment as the enhancement of value of the property was created, in part, by the investment of the judgment debtor.  Therefore, the judgment creditor (our client) will be able to pursue its claims against the defendant for money that is owed to the judgment debtor.

Summary Judgement Win

Successfully represented a software development company in the motion for summary judgment phase of litigation pending in the Southern District of New York, in which the court determined that the Firm’s client could seek in excess to $15 million in damages at trial on its primary claim against a Fortune 500 company.