In Gregory F. Holcombe v. James L. Moskovitz and JOY-CPW, Inc., Index No. 67400/2024, Justice Linda S. Jamieson of the Westchester Commercial Division denied a motion to appoint a receiver over the judgment debtor’s business assets. The court found the request premature, as the plaintiff had not yet exhausted other available enforcement tools.

Background 

The plaintiff, Gregory Holcombe, previously obtained a judgment for over $409,000 against defendants James Moskovitz and his company, JOY-CPW, Inc. (“JOY”), arising from unpaid promissory notes. Following that judgment, Holcombe moved to appoint a receiver under CPLR § 5228 to seize and manage JOY’s assets—including intangible property such as intellectual property, archives, royalties, commissions, and revenue-generating contracts—in an effort to satisfy the debt. 

Plaintiff argued that such relief was necessary given the defendants’ alleged evasive conduct. Holcombe claimed that after serving an information subpoena on a bank, defendants falsely told the bank a stay was forthcoming. The referenced “stay” was allegedly based on a separate action the defendants filed in New York County, in which a judge declined to sign an order to show cause to stay the Westchester judgment. 

Plaintiff contended that JOY’s business was complex and involved commingled accounts and intangible assets that would require skilled management for liquidation—factors supporting the appointment of a receiver. 

Defendants’ Opposition 

The defendants did not dispute the outstanding judgment but characterized Holcombe’s actions as part of a vendetta. They argued that a receivership would irreparably harm the company and its stakeholders, which include production personnel, station workers, and the defendants themselves. Moskovitz contended that the value of the business lies in its goodwill, specialized knowledge, and his personal involvement—making it unsuitable for liquidation through a receiver. 

They urged the court to give them time to pay the judgment voluntarily and asserted, without offering a payment plan or documentation, that full repayment would be made in due course. They also referenced a bankruptcy proceeding filed by Moskovitz’s wife as a factor in resolving the judgment, though the court noted they provided no timeline or connection between that proceeding and Holcombe’s claim. 

The Court’s Analysis 

Justice Jamieson denied the motion, finding that the high bar for appointing a receiver under CPLR § 5228 had not been met. The statute allows the appointment of a receiver when “a special reason appears to justify one.” The court cited the Court of Appeals’ decision in Hotel 71 Mezz Lender LLC v Falor, 14 NY3d 303 (2010), which sets forth factors for evaluating such requests: (1) availability of alternative remedies, (2) likelihood of collection via receivership, and (3) risk of fraud or insolvency without one. Here, Holcombe had taken only minimal enforcement steps—serving restraining notices and subpoenas—and had not demonstrated that those methods were inadequate.

The court emphasized that it was too early in the enforcement process to appoint a receiver, especially where no showing had been made that a receivership would increase the likelihood of satisfying the judgment. Justice Jamieson also noted that receiverships are particularly appropriate for intangible assets with no ready market that cannot be sold by a sheriff. While JOY’s assets might fall into that category, the plaintiff had not yet taken the intermediate steps necessary to justify such a drastic remedy. 

Conclusion 

The court denied the motion for a receiver as premature but issued a cautionary note: plaintiff may renew the application if defendants obstruct future enforcement efforts. To that end, the court directed Holcombe to re-serve his restraining notices and subpoenas and ordered defendants to respond promptly and refrain from interfering with judgment enforcement. 

This ruling underscores the Westchester Commercial Division’s measured approach to post-judgment enforcement and its reluctance to grant extraordinary relief such as receiverships unless the record clearly demonstrates the need. Judgment creditors must first exhaust standard collection tools before turning to more aggressive remedies. 

To learn more about new developments in the Westchester Commercial Division, please subscribe to the Westchester Commercial Division Blog.