On August 3, 2015, Justice Singh of the New York County Commercial Division issued a decision in Gliklad v. Cherney, 2015 NY Slip Op. 31439(U), refusing to quash a subpoena to a law firm issued in support of judgment collection, explaining:
CPLR 5223 compels disclosure of all matter relevant to the satisfaction of the judgment, and sets forth a generous standard which permits the creditor a broad range of inquiry through either the judgment debtor or any third person with knowledge of the debtor’s property“. A judgment creditor is entitled to broad discovery to assist in prosecuting its turnover claims, particularly since the evidence is largely within the possession of the judgment debtors and transferees.
(Internal quotations and citations omitted) (emphasis added). Because the discovery sought was “relevant to the satisfaction of the” judgment, the court declined to quash the subpoena.