Recent Developments

July 28, 2025

Interference With the Enforcement of a Judgment: An Overlooked Tort

New York has long recognized a cause of action for unlawful interference with the enforcement of a judgment. See Strachman v. Palestinian Auth., 73 A.D.3d 124, 128-129 (1st Dep’t 2010). The claim sounds in tort. Yet, it is not well known, and the cause of action appears to be seldom litigated.

In James v. Powell, 25 A.D.2d 1 (1st Dep’t 1966], rev’d on other grounds 19 N.Y.2d 249 (1967), the First Department explained that “At common law, whoever by improper means interfered with the execution of a judgment was liable for the damage he caused to the judgment creditor (Mott v. Danforth, 47 Pa. 304, 6 Watts 304 (1837); Collins v. Cronin, 117 Pa. 35, 11 A. 869, 20 Week Notes Cas 227, 35 Pitts Leg J 332 (1887)).” See Siegel v. Kontogiannis, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 38253 (S.D.N.Y. 2017) (citing cases).

The claim is versatile and can be asserted against family, friends, or associates of a judgment debtor who improperly attempt to aid the debtor, or even an attorney. For example, in Quinby v. Strauss, 90 N.Y. 664 (1882), a cause of action for damages was upheld against a judgment debtor and his attorney for conspiring to keep the defendant’s property out of the reach of his creditors by securing fictitious debts under which the property was sold to the attorney. The situations that could support a tortious interference claim are as myriad as the schemes concocted by debtors to try to avoid their creditors.

The amount of the judgment is not necessarily the measure of the damages in a tortious interference action. As set forth in James v. Powell, the measure of damages is the loss or expense caused by the interference. However, “this could embrace the judgment itself, in which event satisfaction of the judgment so obtained would also operate to satisfy the original judgment.” James v. Powell, 25 A.D.2d at 4.

This tort claim is something to be considered and a good weapon to have in the judgment creditor’s tool kit.

Recent Developments: An Important Constitutional Law Case

Sometimes we are asked to get involved in a case that is not a typical debt collection matter even though it involves a party trying to recover money. Occasionally, we accept the challenge.

County Acquisitions v. Lanser, Index No. 604602/2023, is such a case. It involves a senior citizen who lost her long-time home, worth perhaps $900,000, to a vulture investor, for simply failing to pay a $5,000 tax bill. Incredibly, an archaic New York law allowed the investor to pay the tax and obtain a deed from a village treasurer without any judicial proceedings. Moreover, the law provides no method for the aggrieved homeowner to recover the excess value of their property; the investor gets title to the house for $5,000!

We were hired to represent this homeowner on an appeal in a quiet title action. We focused our efforts on bringing Tyler v. Hennepin County, 598 U.S. 631 (2023), a recent landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court, to the Appellate Division’s attention. In Tyler, the property owner challenged the loss of her home to satisfy a small tax lien and the lack of a right under local law to obtain the surplus monies. The Supreme Court unanimously condemned the “confiscation of more property than was due” as an unconstitutional taking, citing two controlling principles: (1) that while a municipality has the power to sell the homeowner’s property to recover unpaid taxes, it “could not use the toehold of the tax debt to confiscate more property than was due,” and (2) that “a taxpayer is entitled to the surplus in excess of the debt owed.”

Although Tyler had not yet been decided and thus was not litigated below in our case, we persuaded the Appellate Division to reach the issue. It held that while Tyler involved a slightly different facts, “recent orders from the United States Supreme Court imply that the Court may view its own decision in a way that would render it applicable to the circumstances presented . . . .” (citing Nieveen v. TAX 106, 311 Neb. 574, 974 N.W.2d 15, vacated 143 S. Ct. 2580 (2023); Cont’l Res. v. Fair, 311 Neb. 184, 971 N.W.2d 313, vacated 143 S. Ct. 2580 (2023); cf. 257-261 20th Ave. Realty, LLC v. Roberto, 477 N.J. Super 339, 307 A.3d 19 (2023)).

The Lanser case was remitted to the trial court for further proceedings, a major victory for our client. This important case goes on.