| Matter of New York State Crime Victims Bd. v Harris |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 09103 [68 AD3d 1269] |
| December 10, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| In the Matter of New York State Crime Victims Board, on Behalfof Albert Organek and Others, Respondent, v Antonio D. Harris,Appellant. |
—[*1] Andrew M. Cuomo, Attorney General, Albany (Owen Demuth of counsel), forrespondent.
Stein, J. Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Egan, Jr., J.), entered October 30, 2008in Albany County, which, in a proceeding pursuant to Executive Law § 632-a, grantedpetitioner's motion for a preliminary injunction.
In 2008, respondent—who is serving an aggregate prison term of 20 years to life formurder in the second degree, among other convictions—began inquiring as to the releaseof funds being held in a guardianship account established for his benefit in 1995.[FN1]Surrogate's Court (Howe, S.) notified petitioner of the existence of the $23,000 in the accountpursuant to SCPA 2222-a. That court also ordered that the funds be held for at least 30 days anduntil further order of the court. Respondent then filed a petition for termination of the accountand release of the funds. In the interim, however, petitioner commenced this proceeding pursuantto the Son of Sam Law (see Executive Law § 632-a), seeking a preliminaryinjunction prohibiting respondent from accessing the funds until such time as the claims ofrespondent's crime victims could be [*2]resolved. Petitioner alsosought a temporary restraining order to protect the funds during the pendency of this proceeding.Supreme Court granted both the temporary restraining order and, subsequently, the preliminaryinjunction. Respondent now appeals and we affirm.
Preliminarily, we are unpersuaded by respondent's contention that the funds in question arenot subject to the Son of Sam Law because the guardianship account wasestablished—and he became entitled to the funds therein—prior to the enactment ofthe relevant provisions of that law.[FN2]The guardianship expired in 1997 when respondent reached 18 years of age (seegenerally SCPA 1707 [2]). In its 2001 amendments to the Son of Sam Law, the Legislaturebroadly defined "[f]unds of a convicted person" as "all funds and property received from anysource by a person convicted of a specified crime" (Executive Law § 632-a [1] [c]) andexcluded only four categories of funds (see Executive Law § 632-a [3]; CPLR5205 [k]), none of which is relevant here. Thus, the funds held by Surrogate's Court constitute"funds of a convicted person," which may be received by respondent upon an order ofSurrogate's Court and are properly subject to the provisions of the Son of Sam Law.
We also discern no error in Supreme Court's issuance of injunctive relief. Executive Law§ 632-a sets forth a statutory scheme intended to improve the ability of crime victims toobtain full and just compensation from the person(s) convicted of the crime (seeGovernor's Approval Mem, Bill Jacket, L 2001, ch 62; McKinney's Cons Laws of NY, Book 1,Statutes § 124). As such, when petitioner receives either a copy of a summons andcomplaint or notice from a crime victim of intent to commence a civil action to recover moneydamages from the person convicted of the crime, petitioner is obligated to take appropriateaction to "avoid the wasting of the assets identified . . . as funds of a convictedperson" (Executive Law § 632-a [5] [c]). The statute specifically authorizes petitioner to"apply for any and all provisional remedies that are also otherwise available to the plaintiff"(Executive Law § 632-a [6]), including the remedies of attachment, injunction,receivership and notice of pendency (see Executive Law § 632-a [6] [a]).
Respondent's argument that injunctive remedies are not available to petitioner because theywould not be available to a plaintiff suing for money damages (see CPLR 6301) isunpersuasive. While it is true that such remedies are generally unavailable in actions fordamages (see Credit Agricole Indosuez v Rossiyskiy Kredit Bank, 94 NY2d 541,544-545 [2000]), a crime victim does not stand in the same shoes as a potential ordinary creditor.Indeed, the Legislature went to great lengths to provide avenues to allow crime victims to becompensated for their losses. The Son of Sam Law clearly concerns civil actions brought onbehalf of crime victims to recover from the convicted persons for the victims' damages resultingfrom the crimes. Thus, the interpretation of the statute urged upon us by respondent to preventpetitioner from obtaining injunctive relief pending the outcome of such a proceeding wouldrender meaningless the provisions bestowing such authority upon petitioner and would defeat thevery purpose of the statute (see Executive Law § 632-a [6]; see generallyMcKinney's Cons Laws of NY, Book 1, Statutes §§ 111, 144; Matter of SIN,Inc. v Department of Fin. of City of N.Y., [*3]71 NY2d 616,621-622 [1988]; Matter of LewisFamily Farm, Inc. v New York State Adirondack Park Agency, 64 AD3d 1009,1013-1014 [2009]). Accordingly, our courts have consistently countenanced the grant ofpreliminary injunctions in cases such as this (see Matter of New York State Crime Victims Bd. v Mitchell, 12 AD3d870 [2004], lv denied 4 NY3d 707 [2005]; Matter of New York State Crime Victims Bd. v Jackson, 4 AD3d710, 711 [2004]; New York State Crime Victims Bd. v Wendell, 12 Misc 3d 801[Sup Ct, Albany County 2006]; New York State Crime Victims Bd. v Majid, 193 Misc2d 710, 715 [Sup Ct, Albany County 2002]; see also Thompson v 76 Corp., 37 AD3d 450 [2007]).Furthermore, we find that petitioner has otherwise satisfied the statutory requirements forobtaining such relief (see CPLR 6311).
Respondent's remaining contentions have been considered and are either academic orunavailing.
Cardona, P.J., Peters, Lahtinen and Kane, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed,without costs.
Footnote 1: Although respondent reachedthe age of majority in 1997, the funds were not released to him at that time.
Footnote 2: In 2001, theLegislature—in an effort to improve the ability of crime victims to obtain full and justcompensation—amended the Son of Sam Law to, among other things, include "funds of aconvicted person" (L 2001, ch 62, § 1), in addition to profits from a crime (seeExecutive Law § 632-a [1] [b]).