cause" is established "upon a mere showing that the [party
against whom the judgment has been entered] has substantial
property in the other [foreign] district and insufficient
[property] in the rendering district to satisfy the judgment."
Jack Frost Laboratories, Inc. v. Physicians & Nurses
Manufacturing Corp., 951 F. Supp. 51, 52 (S.D.N.Y. 1997)
(Cedarbaum, J.) (quoting Woodward & Dickerson v. Kahn, 1993 WL
106129 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 2, 1993) (Leisure, J.)). Defendants have
established "good cause" by showing that while Mr. Owen owned a
home in Westchester County at the time he commenced this action,
the real property records for Westchester County state that Mr.
Owen sold his former residence in Scarsdale, New York, on January
17, 1999 for $686,000.00 (Exhibit 3 to the Gavaris Aff.).
Furthermore, according to his trial testimony, Mr. Owen currently
lives in Newport Beach, California, and is employed in California
by a company called Cruttenden Roth, Inc., located in Newport
Beach, California. Tr. at pp. 47-48.
In the absence of contrary evidence, the affidavit in support
of the judgment creditors' motion should be presumed to be true.
See AT & T Corp. v. Public Service Enterprises of Pennsylvania,
Inc., 1999 WL 672543, *6 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 24, 1999) (Preska, J.).
Owen, the judgment debtor, has not submitted any sworn proof on
this matter. The opposing papers of his lawyers do not even
attempt to dispute — much less refute — defendants' proof that he
no longer has leviable assets in New York to satisfy the
judgments, and defendants' statement that he does have assets in
California where he currently resides and is gainfully employed.
Nor does Owen dispute that his former residence in Westchester
County, where he lived at the time he commenced this action, was
sold in January of 1999, and that he obtained $686,000.00 from
the sale, which amount is sufficient to satisfy the judgments
against Owen. Owen's careful failure to controvert any of these
facts permits acceptance thereof for purposes of this motion.
See First Options of Chicago, Inc. v. Polonitza, 1991 WL 2408,
at *1 (N.D.Ill. Jan. 4, 1991); AT & T Corp., 1999 WL 672543,
Judgment creditors, such as defendants herein, "need not show
exact evidence of assets" and registration may be granted upon a
"lesser showing." AT & T Corp., 1999 WL 672543, *5. Defendants
have satisfied the burden of proof, and plaintiff has failed to
submit any evidence to the contrary or offer any substantial
reason why defendants' judgments should not be protected by
registration in the area where he lives and works.
Defendants' motion to permit registration of the judgments in
California is granted.
© 1992-2003 VersusLaw Inc.