A judgment creditor learns from an information subpoena that the debtor has $80,000 sitting in a Citibank account. The creditor’s attorney serves a restraining notice on the bank, the bank confirms the funds are frozen, and the creditor waits for the money to arrive. It never does. Three months later the freeze is still in place, the debtor is filing complaints with the bank, and the creditor’s attorney finally calls Warner & Scheuerman to figure out why a frozen account hasn’t translated into a recovery. The answer is the same as in many of these matters: a restraining notice was served and a turnover proceeding never was, and the two devices do entirely different things.
CPLR Article 52 contains a layered toolkit for post-judgment enforcement. Restraining notices and turnover proceedings are the two most heavily used tools and the two most frequently confused. The difference between them is the difference between a frozen account and money in the creditor’s pocket.
What the Restraining Notice Actually Does
CPLR 5222 authorizes a restraining notice that may be issued by the clerk of the court or, more typically, by the judgment creditor’s attorney as an officer of the court. It can be served on the judgment debtor or on any third party that holds property in which the debtor has an interest, except an employer with respect to wages, which requires an income execution under CPLR 5231 instead.
The mechanism is simple. A person served with a restraining notice is forbidden from making or suffering any sale, assignment, transfer, or interference with the debtor’s property in their possession or custody for one year (or until the judgment is satisfied or vacated). Disobedience is punishable as contempt. Banking institutions, brokerage houses, partners, customers, and family members holding the debtor’s funds become legally bound to keep the property in place.
A few statutory limits matter. Leave of court is required to serve more than one restraining notice on the same person regarding the same judgment. A judgment creditor may not serve more than two restraining notices per year on a natural person’s banking institution account. A garnishee that withholds twice the amount due on the judgment is no longer restrained as to other property.
The most important limit is what the restraining notice does not do. It freezes. It does not compel the third party to pay anyone, including the creditor. The funds sit. Time passes. Without a follow-up step, the freeze accomplishes nothing more than preventing the debtor from spending the money in that account.
The Notice-to-Debtor Requirements That Trip Up Otherwise Strong Cases
CPLR 5222(d) requires that within four days of serving a restraining notice on a third-party garnishee, a copy of the restraining notice and a Notice to Judgment Debtor must be served on the judgment debtor. The Notice to Judgment Debtor informs natural-person debtors that certain monies are exempt from the satisfaction of the judgment.
CPLR 5222-a, added in 2008 as part of the Exempt Income Protection Act, layers an additional procedure on top for natural-person debtors with banking accounts. The bank itself must serve the restraining notice, an exemption notice, and exemption claim forms on the debtor within prescribed time frames. If the bank fails to comply, the creditor’s downstream turnover proceeding can be dismissed regardless of the merits.
The Second Department’s decision in Lincoln Square and the Nassau District Court’s reasoning in North Shore University Hospital at Plainview v. Citibank both make the point that the burden is on the judgment creditor to plead and prove compliance with the notice requirements. The Lincoln Square petition was dismissed for failure to demonstrate proof of CPLR 5222(d) and (e) compliance, even though the underlying judgment was sound. Constitutional due process is the reason the courts treat these requirements strictly.
A creditor who serves a restraining notice and stops there will often find that any subsequent turnover proceeding fails on procedural grounds the creditor never thought to address.
The Two Paths Under CPLR 5225
CPLR 5225 provides the actual transfer mechanism, and the procedural route depends on who holds the property.
CPLR 5225(a) applies when the property is in the possession or custody of the judgment debtor. The judgment creditor proceeds by motion in the underlying action, with notice served on the debtor as a summons or by registered or certified mail. The court orders the debtor to pay the money or deliver the personal property to the creditor.
CPLR 5225(b) applies when the property is held by a third party (a “garnishee” in the older terminology) or by a transferee from the debtor. This route requires a special proceeding, not a motion. The petition must show either that the debtor is entitled to possession of the property or that the creditor’s rights to the property are superior to those of the transferee. Notice must be served on both the third party holding the property and on the debtor. The court may permit the debtor or any adverse claimant to intervene.
The distinction matters for two reasons.
A motion under 5225(a) lives in the original case under the original index number. A special proceeding under 5225(b) is a new action with its own index number, requires a verified petition, and follows the standard special proceeding rules under CPLR Article 4.
The Court of Appeals’ decision in Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands v. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, 21 N.Y.3d 55 (2013), narrowed CPLR 5225(b) by holding that a banking entity must have actual, rather than constructive, possession or custody of the assets sought. The court refused to extend 5225(b) reach to a parent bank for assets held by its foreign subsidiary. The decision shapes how creditors structure international and multi-entity collection efforts.
CPLR 5227 sits adjacent to 5225 and applies when the third party owes a debt to the judgment debtor (such as a customer with an unpaid invoice, an insurance carrier with a pending claim, or a contracting party with future payment obligations). The procedure is also a special proceeding, and the same notice and pleading rigor applies.
Why Restraining Notice Without a Turnover Is Money in the Vault
The practical sequencing on a typical commercial collection looks like this.
Step one is the information subpoena under CPLR 5224, identifying where the debtor’s accounts are held and roughly what they contain.
Step two is the restraining notice under CPLR 5222, served on the bank to freeze the funds before the debtor can move them. Notice to debtor under 5222(d) and the exemption procedure under 5222-a follow within the prescribed timeframes.
Step three is the turnover proceeding. If the property is in the debtor’s hands, a motion under 5225(a). If the property is in the bank’s hands or in a third-party transferee’s possession, a special proceeding under 5225(b). If the property is in the form of a debt owed to the debtor, a special proceeding under 5227.
The restraining notice is the lock. The turnover proceeding is the key. A creditor with the lock and no key has succeeded only in inconveniencing the debtor.
How Warner & Scheuerman Sequences These Tools
The firm’s collection practice runs these devices on a coordinated calendar rather than as one-off events. Information subpoenas go out in batches to identify accounts and account holders. Restraining notices follow on the same day across all identified institutions to prevent funds from migrating between banks. The notice-to-debtor and exemption procedures are documented contemporaneously so the procedural record is clean when the turnover proceeding is filed weeks later.
For complex matters involving transferees, related entities, or alleged fraudulent conveyances, the turnover petition under CPLR 5225(b) is paired with claims under New York’s Voidable Transactions Act (Debtor and Creditor Law sections 270 through 281) so the court can address both the asset and the underlying transfer in a single proceeding.
If you hold a New York money judgment and a restraining notice has produced a frozen account but no recovery, the missing piece is almost always the turnover proceeding. Reach out to Warner & Scheuerman to evaluate the procedural posture, confirm the notice requirements have been satisfied, and convert the freeze into a payment before the next round of the debtor’s defenses begins.
