A turnover order is how the money actually moves.

A restraining notice freezes property where it sits. A turnover order moves it. Three provisions do the moving: CPLR 5225(a) by motion against you, CPLR 5225(b) by special proceeding against whoever holds your property or took it, and CPLR 5227 against anyone who owes you money. Each has its own target and its own proof.

What is the difference between a restraining notice and a turnover order?

A restraining notice under CPLR 5222 holds property in place. It directs a bank or other garnishee not to transfer the judgment debtor’s property. It does not deliver anything to the judgment creditor. A turnover order under CPLR 5225 or CPLR 5227 is the court order that actually transfers the money or the property.

The restraint comes first, quietly, sometimes before you know a judgment has been entered. The turnover application comes second, with your name on it.

Keep the two apart when you read the case law. Motorola answered a certified question about restraints only: under the separate entity rule, a restraining notice served on a garnishee bank’s New York branch does not freeze assets in that bank’s foreign branches. A turnover order’s reach is a different question, answered in Koehler: article 52 has no express territorial limitation, and personal jurisdiction over the garnishee is key.

So the frozen account is not a lost account. It is held. The fight is over the order that comes next.

Law: CPLR 5222; 5225; 5227. Motorola Credit Corp. v Standard Chartered Bank, 24 N.Y.3d 149 (2014); Koehler v Bank of Bermuda Ltd., 12 N.Y.3d 533 (2009).

When can a judgment creditor use CPLR 5225(a) against you directly?

CPLR 5225(a) applies when the judgment debtor holds the property. On motion of the creditor, on notice to the debtor, where it is shown the debtor is in possession or custody of money or other personal property in which he has an interest, the court shall order payment of so much as satisfies the judgment.

If the money is not enough, the same subdivision directs delivery of other personal property of sufficient value to a designated sheriff. Cash goes to the creditor. Things go to the sheriff.

Notice of the motion must be served on the judgment debtor like a summons, or by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested. The statute fixes the method, and ordinary mail does not satisfy it.

Note the word “shall.” Once the creditor makes the showing, the subdivision reads as a command, but not an absolute one. The property must be reachable rather than exempt, and CPLR 5240 lets the court deny, limit, condition, regulate or modify any enforcement procedure. Your defense attacks the showing: the property is not in your possession or custody, or you have no interest in it.

Law: CPLR 5225(a); 5240.

What is a CPLR 5225(b) turnover proceeding against a garnishee?

CPLR 5225(b) is a special proceeding, not a motion, and it targets someone other than the judgment debtor. The respondent is a person in possession or custody of money or other personal property in which the judgment debtor has an interest, or a transferee of money or property from the debtor.

It is commenced by filing a petition, and the notice of petition is served like a summons, at least eight days before the return date, with answering papers due at least two days before it. Notice must also go to the judgment debtor like a summons or by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested. The Second Department calls this an expedited special proceeding.

The creditor’s burden is a two-part inquiry:

• An evidentiary showing that the judgment debtor has an interest in the property held by the third party.
• A showing that the debtor is entitled to possess it, or that the creditor’s right is superior to that of the possessor.

Both halves must be met. A bank statement with your name on it goes to the first and says nothing about the second. Where the respondent is a transferee, the statute asks whether the creditor’s rights are superior. Where it is a banking entity, the Court of Appeals requires actual, not constructive, custody.

The remedy tracks subdivision (a): money to the creditor, other property to a sheriff. The court may permit the judgment debtor to intervene, and an adverse claimant, whose rights it may determine under CPLR 5239.

Law: CPLR 5225(b); 403(b), (c). Matter of Signature Bank v HSBC Bank USA, N.A., 67 A.D.3d 917 (2d Dept 2009); Matter of Sirotkin v Jordan, LLC, 141 A.D.3d 670 (2d Dept 2016); Commonwealth of N. Mariana Is. v Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, 21 N.Y.3d 55 (2013).

Can a judgment creditor reach a joint bank account?

Jointly owned bank accounts are vulnerable to a judgment creditor under CPLR 5225. Opening a joint account creates a rebuttable presumption that each named tenant possesses the whole, which exposes the whole account to levy by the creditor of one joint tenant. That presumption is rebuttable. It is not a conclusion.

Two sources do that work, and they differ. Case law supplies the presumption that each named tenant is possessed of the whole for levy purposes. Banking Law 675 supplies a separate presumption of joint tenancy, on conditions: the deposit must be in the statutory survivorship form, payable to either or the survivor, and the presumption operates only absent fraud or undue influence. Without survivorship language in the account documents, it does not apply.

Either presumption is rebutted the same way: direct proof that no joint tenancy was intended, or substantial circumstantial proof that the account was opened for convenience only. If rebutted, the levy reaches only the debtor’s actual interest. Where the holder is a natural person, CPLR 5205 exemptions and the CPLR 5222-a procedure apply as well.

Now the application. In Signature Bank, the creditor sought turnover of two joint accounts naming the judgment debtor and her daughters. The daughters defaulted, so no competing owner appeared, and the debtor’s conclusory assertions of ownership did not rebut the presumption. The Second Department affirmed turnover of both accounts in full. I ask for the account opening documents, the signature cards and the deposit history before I ask whose money it was, because intent is proved out of the account’s own paper.

Law: CPLR 5205; 5222-a; 5225; Banking Law 675(a), (b). Matter of Signature Bank v HSBC Bank USA, N.A., 67 A.D.3d 917 (2d Dept 2009).

Can your customer be ordered to pay your judgment creditor instead of you?

Yes. CPLR 5227 authorizes a special proceeding against any person shown to be or to become indebted to the judgment debtor. The court may require that person to pay the creditor the debt upon maturity, or enough of it to satisfy the judgment, and to execute any document needed to effect payment.

Read the verb. CPLR 5227 says the court may require payment, where CPLR 5225 says shall, so this relief is discretionary on its face. The alternative is worse: the court may instead direct that judgment be entered against the person served, in favor of the creditor. A customer sitting on your unpaid invoice is indebted to you. So is a counterparty whose obligation has not matured, because the statute reaches a person who will become indebted.

Two details matter to the person served. Costs shall not be awarded against a person who did not dispute the indebtedness. And notice must also go to the judgment debtor like a summons or by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested. The court may permit you to intervene, and an adverse claimant too, with rights determined under CPLR 5239.

Consequence: your receivables are enforcement targets, and the party holding them has little incentive to fight.

Law: CPLR 5227.

Which provision is the creditor using against you?

The three turnover provisions differ by who holds the asset. CPLR 5225(a) is used when you hold it. CPLR 5225(b) is used when a third party holds it or took it from you. CPLR 5227 is used when a third party owes you money instead. The caption tells you which fight you are in.

Notice reaches you in every scenario. That envelope is not a courtesy copy. It is the start of your window to seek intervention and to oppose.

What defenses actually defeat a turnover order?

Turnover defenses attack the creditor’s showing, not the judgment. What stays contestable is whether the judgment debtor has an interest in this property, whether the respondent actually holds it, where the property sits, and whether the enforcement procedure should be limited. Attacking the judgment itself is a separate motion under CPLR 5015.

• The property belongs to someone else. A true owner can ask to intervene, or commence a CPLR 5239 proceeding, which must be brought before a sheriff or receiver applies the property to the judgment. The court may vacate the execution, void the levy, direct disposition or award damages, and shall order a separate trial where there appear to be disputed questions of fact. A claim found fraudulent can cost the claimant the other side’s expenses, including fees.
• The entity holding the asset is not the judgment debtor. A judgment against a company is not a judgment against its owner, and the reverse is equally true. The creditor must close that gap with evidence, by one of two routes: a CPLR 5225(b) proceeding may be maintained on an alter ego theory, or against a transferee on proof that the creditor’s rights are superior. Name matching is not proof.
• Exempt property. CPLR 5201(b) reaches any property that could be assigned or transferred, unless exempt. CPLR 5205 supplies the exemptions, and CPLR 5222-a the exemption notice and claim form procedure where a natural person’s account is restrained.
• The asset sits in a foreign branch of a bank. The separate entity rule remains valid New York law, so a restraining notice served on a garnishee bank’s New York branch cannot freeze assets in that bank’s foreign branches. The Court of Appeals grounded it in international comity and a bank’s regulatory exposure abroad. Read it narrowly: it covers branches of a bank garnishee, not property abroad generally, which Koehler lets a creditor reach where the court has personal jurisdiction over the garnishee.
• The procedure is oppressive. CPLR 5240 permits the court, at any time, on its own initiative or on motion of any interested person, to deny, limit, condition, regulate, extend or modify any enforcement procedure. Invoke it when the method, not the judgment, is the problem.

The turnover fight is not about whether you owe the money. It is about whether this property, held by this person, in this place, is reachable by this order.

Law: CPLR 5015; 5201(b); 5205; 5222-a; 5225(b); 5239; 5240. Motorola Credit Corp. v Standard Chartered Bank, 24 N.Y.3d 149 (2014); Koehler v Bank of Bermuda Ltd., 12 N.Y.3d 533 (2009); Matter of Rockefeller v Statement Servs., Corp., 204 A.D.3d 922 (2d Dept 2022).

What should you do first when a turnover motion or petition lands?

The first task on a turnover application is identifying the property and the holder, because those two facts shape the defenses available. Read the caption and the relief requested, then match them against the name on the judgment and the name on the account or the invoice.

I read the prayer for relief before the allegations, because the relief names the property and the property decides the defense.

Concrete first steps:

• Identify the provision. A notice of motion in the underlying action points to CPLR 5225(a). A notice of petition or order to show cause points to 5225(b) or 5227.
• Calendar the return date, then count backward. The answer is due at least two days before it, or seven if the creditor served twelve days out and demanded one.
• Pull the account opening documents, signature cards and deposit history for every account named, with proof of who deposited what and whether it is in survivorship form.
• Compare the judgment debtor’s exact legal name to the account holder’s, suffix included.
• Determine where the account is maintained; a foreign branch of a bank raises the separate entity defense.
• If a third party truly owns the property, choose between intervention, a CPLR 5239 proceeding, and a CPLR 5240 application aimed at the method of enforcement.

Then state your position in evidence, not adjectives. The lesson of the joint account cases is blunt: conclusory assertions do not rebut a presumption. Proof does.