You’ve located the debtor’s assets. You know where the money is. But it’s not sitting in a straightforward bank account waiting to be levied. It’s in a brokerage account titled in someone else’s name. It’s in receivables owed to the debtor by a client or customer. It’s in property held by a third party who claims it belongs to them. A standard bank levy won’t reach it. A property lien won’t convert it to cash on any useful timeline. This is where turnover proceedings come in, and it’s where Warner & Scheuerman’s litigation experience intersects with their investigative work to produce results that other enforcement methods can’t. A turnover proceeding under CPLR 5225 is a court order compelling a debtor or a third party to deliver property to the judgment creditor. It’s the enforcement tool that reaches assets other tools can’t touch.
What CPLR 5225 Actually Allows
New York’s turnover statute has two subsections that apply in different situations, and understanding the distinction determines how the proceeding is structured.
CPLR 5225(a) applies when the debtor personally holds property that should be applied to satisfy the judgment. This covers situations where the debtor has money, tangible property, or other assets in their direct possession or control. The creditor brings a motion on notice, and if the court finds that the debtor has the property and that it’s not exempt from execution, the court orders the debtor to turn it over.
CPLR 5225(b) applies when the property is in the hands of a third party, someone other than the debtor who possesses assets that belong to or are owed to the debtor. This is the provision that reaches brokerage accounts held by a nominee, funds owed to the debtor by a customer or business partner, property held by a family member, or assets in the possession of an entity the debtor controls. A 5225(b) proceeding is a special proceeding, not a simple motion. The third party must be served with process and given an opportunity to assert any rights they claim in the property.
The distinction matters procedurally. A 5225(a) motion against the debtor can be made in the original action where the judgment was entered. A 5225(b) proceeding against a third party is essentially a mini-lawsuit within the enforcement process, with its own pleading, discovery, and potentially trial. It’s more complex and more time-consuming, but it’s often the only way to reach assets the debtor has placed in someone else’s hands.
When a Turnover Proceeding Is the Right Tool
Turnover proceedings aren’t the first step in most judgment enforcement efforts. They’re typically deployed after preliminary tools have done their job and identified assets that require court intervention to reach.
The standard enforcement sequence starts with information subpoenas to discover what the debtor owns, restraining notices to freeze identified accounts, and bank levies or income executions to collect liquid assets. These tools work well against assets that are clearly in the debtor’s name, at identifiable financial institutions, and not subject to competing ownership claims.
Turnover becomes necessary when the asset picture is more complicated. A debtor’s interest in a closely held business can’t be levied the way a bank account can. Partnership distributions, LLC membership interests, and shares in a private company all represent value, but extracting that value requires a court order directing the entity or its managing members to deliver distributions or other payments to the creditor. That’s a turnover proceeding.
Receivables owed to the debtor present a similar challenge. If the debtor is a contractor who’s owed $75,000 by a client for completed work, that receivable is an asset of the debtor. But the creditor can’t simply call the debtor’s client and demand payment. A turnover order directs the third party (the debtor’s client) to pay the creditor instead of the debtor.
Disputed ownership is the most litigation-intensive scenario. The debtor transferred $500,000 into a jointly owned brokerage account and now claims the money belongs to the co-owner. The co-owner moves to dismiss the turnover proceeding, asserting that they are the true owner of the funds and the debtor has no interest. Resolving this requires discovery, depositions, motion practice, and sometimes a hearing or trial to determine who actually owns the assets.
Warner & Scheuerman litigated precisely this scenario over the course of three years, ultimately establishing that the judgment debtor did have an interest in the contested brokerage funds despite the nominal owner’s claims to the contrary. That recovery required sustained litigation against both the debtor and the third-party account holder, including multiple depositions and what referring attorneys described as superbly briefed motion practice.
What Happens During a 5225(b) Proceeding
A third-party turnover proceeding follows a specific procedural path. The creditor files a petition in the court where the judgment was entered, describing the property sought, identifying the third party in possession, and explaining the basis for claiming that the property belongs to or is owed to the debtor. The petition must be served on both the debtor and the third party.
The third party can respond by either complying (delivering the property) or contesting the petition. If they contest, they typically assert one of a few defenses: that the property belongs to them, not the debtor; that the debtor has no interest in the assets; that the property is exempt from execution; or that the creditor’s claim is procedurally defective.
If the third party contests, the proceeding moves into discovery. The creditor can depose the third party, subpoena financial records, and obtain documents showing the flow of funds into and out of the disputed account or asset. This discovery phase is where cases are won or lost. The paper trail either supports the debtor’s claim that the assets belong to someone else, or it reveals that the ownership structure is a fiction designed to shield the debtor’s property from collection.
The court resolves the dispute either on a motion for summary judgment or after a hearing on the merits. If the court finds that the debtor has an interest in the property, it issues an order directing the third party to turn over the property or its monetary equivalent to the creditor.
The Contempt Remedy When Debtors Defy Turnover Orders
A debtor or third party who defies a turnover order faces contempt of court. Civil contempt under Judiciary Law Section 753 allows the court to impose fines and, in some circumstances, incarceration until the party complies with the order. The contempt power is what gives turnover proceedings their teeth. A debtor who ignores a demand letter faces no immediate consequence. A debtor who ignores a court order to turn over assets faces sanctions that escalate until compliance occurs.
The contempt remedy also applies when a debtor dissipates assets after a restraining notice has been served. If Warner & Scheuerman serves a restraining notice freezing a debtor’s interest in an account, and the debtor or a third party transfers funds out of the account in violation of the notice, the court can hold the violating party in contempt and impose liability for the transferred amount. This mechanism prevents debtors from emptying accounts in the window between the creditor’s discovery of the asset and the court’s enforcement order.
Why Turnover Proceedings Require Trial-Level Litigation Skills
A turnover proceeding against a cooperative debtor with clearly identified assets is straightforward. Those cases rarely end up in a courtroom because the debtor knows compliance is inevitable and settles or delivers the assets voluntarily.
The cases that go to litigation involve debtors who have the resources and the motivation to fight. They hire their own attorneys. They assert every available defense. They challenge the creditor’s standing, the procedure, the characterization of the assets, and the ownership structure. The third parties holding the assets have their own counsel and their own interests to protect. Contested turnover proceedings are real litigation with real briefing, real depositions, and real court appearances.
This is why Warner & Scheuerman’s combination of investigative capability and trial-level litigation experience matters specifically in the turnover context. The investigators build the factual record that establishes the debtor’s interest in the disputed assets. The litigators present that record in court, survive the debtor’s challenges, and obtain the order that compels delivery. Separating those functions across different firms creates gaps in communication, strategy, and execution that sophisticated debtors exploit.
Jonathon Warner brings more than 45 years of trial and appellate experience to these proceedings. Karl Scheuerman’s extensive motion practice and brief writing add the precision that complex turnover litigation demands. Referring attorneys in the firm’s testimonials have specifically cited the quality of Warner & Scheuerman’s briefing in contested enforcement actions as a distinguishing factor in their results.
When to Bring Warner & Scheuerman Into a Turnover Situation
If you’ve identified assets that belong to or are owed to your judgment debtor but those assets are held by a third party, controlled through an entity, or subject to a disputed ownership claim, a turnover proceeding under CPLR 5225 may be the path to recovery. The proceeding requires someone who can investigate the ownership structure, build the evidentiary record, and litigate the contested issues through to a court order.
