The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 006) 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207 were read on this motion to/for ORDER OF PROTECTION. Plaintiff commenced this action to recover damages allegedly sustained following defendant GDC 138 E 50 LLC’s (“GDC”) default on a loan. On January 27, 2020, judgment was entered in favor of plaintiff in the amount of $41,138,614.84 against GDC. Defendant, Shanghai Municipal Investment (Group) USA LLC (“SMI”), is purportedly a guarantor of GDC. In August of 2021, plaintiff served a judgment debt subpoena on TD Bank, to obtain financial information involving the account in which the $41 million dollar loan was allegedly deposited. This motion was brought by SMI to quash the TD Bank subpoena. SMI also requests a protective order prohibiting plaintiff from obtaining financial information from the account at issue. For the foregoing reasons, SMI’s motion is denied. BACKGROUND This motion involves plaintiff’s second attempt to obtain financial records from TD Bank. The first subpoena, dated February 24, 2020, demanded that TD Bank provide: “all documents concerning the “Bank Account,” including but not limited to any documents provided to T.D. Bank in connection with opening or closing the Bank Account, all account statements, remittance advices, corporate resolutions, cancelled checks, deposit slips, and any other account documentation.” Purportedly, there was no response to the subpoena. The second subpoena, dated August 20, 2021, was served on TD Bank with a restraining notice seeking disclosure of records related to funds that are “relevant to satisfaction of the judgment.” The subpoena specifically requests production of the following: “Any and all records relating to the bank account bearing the account number [omitted] and corresponding to the SWIFT code of [omitted] and the ABA routing number of [omitted]. This request includes without limitation, account information including addresses, contact numbers opening/closing dates, current status, and signatories, bank statements, signature cards, cancelled checks (front and back), deposit slips, withdrawal slips, ATM transaction history, 1099s, standing or auto-transfer orders, and records of transfers to and from such accounts for the period of time from January 1, 2017, through the present.” SMI moves to quash plaintiff’s second subpoena and obtain a protective order on the basis that the subpoena: (1) seeks the production of discovery that was prohibited by Justice Sherwood; (2) seeks the disclosure of the same information requested in the first 2020 TD Bank subpoena; (3) seeks sensitive financial and corporate information that is irrelevant to this action, and (4) is an impermissible vehicle to obtain nonparty information on a closed bank account. In opposition, plaintiff argues that its subpoena fits squarely within the scope of CPLR 5223, which permits a judgment creditor to compel disclosure of any matter relevant to the satisfaction of judgment. DISCUSSION CPLR 3101 requires full disclosure of all matter material and necessary in the prosecution or defense of an action. “[A]n application to quash a subpoena should be granted ‘only where the futility of the process to uncover anything legitimate is inevitable or obvious’ or where the information sought is utterly irrelevant to any proper inquiry” (Anheuser-Busch, Inc. v. Abrams, 71 NY2d 327). The person seeking to quash the subpoena bears the burden of establishing that the requested documents and records are irrelevant (Ledonne v. Orsid Realty Corp., 83 AD3d 598 citing, Velez v. Hunts Point Multi-Serv Ctr., Inc., 29 AD3d 104). SMI fails to establish that the TD Bank subpoena seeks irrelevant financial information or is otherwise improper. CPLR 5223 permits a judgment creditor to compel disclosure of all matter relevant to the satisfaction of a judgment. It is a generous standard that allows for a broad range of inquiry through either the judgment debtor or any third person with knowledge of the debtor’s property (ICD Grp., Inc. v. Israel Foreign Trade Co. (USA) Inc., 224 AD2d 293, 294, (1st Dept 1996) citing generally, Siegel, Practice Commentaries, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 7B, CPLR C5223:2, at 214). Plaintiff is entitled to full disclosure from TD Bank. The account, owned by nonparty 50 Lex Development LLC, was identified as the recipient for the investment made by plaintiff in the facility agreement with GDC. Thirty days after the transfer to GDC was made, the recipient account held by TD Bank was closed. Under these circumstances, a judgment debt subpoena is a proper mechanism to obtain information, especially whereas here, there are clear questions of fact as to whether the transfer of funds from the 50 Lex account was done with an intent to defraud (ICD Grp, 224 AD2d at 294). SMI’s argument that the subpoena seeks irrelevant information, as against SMI, is unavailing. There is no requirement that the information sought in aid of plaintiff’s enforcement of the judgment, be relevant to SMI’s liability in this action (Cave Creek Invs., Inc. v. Urb. FT Grp., Inc., 176 AD3d 573 (1st Dept 2019). This court rejects SMI’s argument that the subpoena is a fishing expedition. The subpoena identifies the account by number, and requests documents and information from January 2017 to the present. Inasmuch as the account was closed on July 19, 2017, as a practical matter, the scope of production is limited to approximately six months’ worth of financial information. The subpoena is sufficiently tailored to assist in enforcement of plaintiff’s judgment. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that SMI’s motion pursuant to CPLR §5240, 3103, and §2304 is denied in its entirety; and it is further ORDERED that SMI’s motion for costs and sanctions pursuant to Uniform Rule 130-1.1 is denied; and it is further ORDERED that TD Bank shall respond and comply with the terms of the subpoena within 30 days of receipt of notice of entry of this order. This constitutes the Decision and Order of the Court. Dated: June 22, 2022
