Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands v. Millard, No. 12-1857 (2d Cir. 2012)
Annotate this Case
Justia Opinion Summary
Want to stay in the know about new opinions from the Second Circuit US Court of Appeals?
Sign up for free summaries delivered directly to your inbox. Learn More ›
You already receive new opinion summaries from Second Circuit US Court of Appeals. Did you know we offer summary newsletters for even more practice areas and jurisdictions? Explore them here.
Plaintiff appealed the district court's order denying plaintiff's application for a turnover order pursuant to N.Y. C.P.L.R. 5225(b). The court certified questions to the New York Court of Appeals regarding the appropriateness of such an order where the assets were in the direct possession not of the garnishee, but rather in the garnishee's subsidiary.
The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on September 6, 2012.
The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on May 15, 2013.
Download PDF
12-1857-cv Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands v. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS For the Second Circuit _______________________________ August Term, 2012 (Argued: August 22, 2012 Decided: September 5, 2012) Docket No. 12-1857-cv _______________________________ COMMONWEALTH OF THE NORTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CANADIAN IMPERIAL BANK OF COMMERCE, Garnishee-Appellee, WILLIAM H. MILLARD, Defendant, THE MILLARD FOUNDATION, Intervenor. _______________________________ Before: CABRANES, STRAUB AND HALL, Circuit Judges. _______________________________ On appeal from an order of the United States District for the Southern District of New York (Lawrence A. Kaplan, Judge) denying Plaintiff-Appellant s application for a turnover order pursuant to N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 5225(b). We CERTIFY questions to the New York Court of Appeals regarding the appropriateness of such an order where the assets are in the direct possession not of the garnishee, but rather in the garnishee s subsidiary. _________________________________ MICHAEL S. KIM (Melanie L. Oxhorn, on the brief) Kobre & Kim LLP, New York, NY, for Plaintiff-Appellant. SCOTT D. MUSOFF (Timothy G. Nelson, Gregory A. Litt, on the brief) Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, New York, NY for Garnishee-Appellee. _________________________________ 1 1 2 PER CURIAM: For the reasons set forth in the District Court s well reasoned and thorough opinion, 3 Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands v. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, No. 4 11-mc-00099-LAK (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 12, 2012), ECF No. 97, resolution of this case turns upon 5 unresolved issues of New York State law regarding the interpretation of N.Y. C.P.L.R. 6 § 5225(b). We believe it is more appropriate for the New York Court of Appeals to address this 7 matter because it is in a better position than this Court to determine how § 5225(b) should be 8 interpreted in light of New York s overall statutory scheme (including, but not limited to, 9 consideration of whether the identical language in § 5225(a) should be given the same meaning 10 as § 5225(b) and what the legislature intended when enacting § 5225(b)). 11 For the foregoing reasons and pursuant to New York Court of Appeals Rule 500.27 and 12 Local Rule 27.2 of this Court, we respectfully CERTIFY to the Court of Appeals the following 13 questions: 14 1. May a court issue a turnover order pursuant to N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 5225(b) to an entity that 15 does not have actual possession or custody of a debtor s assets, but whose subsidiary 16 might have possession or custody of such assets? 17 2. If the answer to the above question is in the affirmative, what factual considerations 18 should a court take into account in determining whether the issuance of such an order is 19 permissible? 20 As is our practice, we do not intend to limit the scope of the Court of Appeals analysis 21 through the formulation of our question, and we invite the Court of Appeals to expand upon or 22 alter [these] question[s] as it should deem appropriate. Joseph v. Athanasopoulos, 648 F.3d 58, 23 68 (2d Cir. 2011). 2 1 It is hereby ORDERED that the Clerk of this Court transmit to the Clerk of the New 2 York Court of Appeals a copy of this opinion as our certificate, together with a complete set of 3 the briefs, the appendix, and the record filed in this Court by the parties. The parties shall bear 4 equally all fees and costs that may be imposed by the New York Court of Appeals in connection 5 with this certification. This panel will resume its consideration of this appeal after the disposition 6 of this certification by the New York Court of Appeals. The stay imposed by the District Court 7 shall remain in effect at least until we dispose of the case upon its return to this panel. 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
