# Marvin H. Schein Descendants LLC v. Brown

> District Court, S.D. New York · January 6, 2020

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10319745

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, S.D. New York
- **Decided:** January 6, 2020
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10319745

## Opinion text

USONUITTEHDE RSTNA DTIESST RDIICSTT ROIFC TN ECWOU YROTR K
---------------------------------------------------------------------- X
:
LESLIE J. LEVINE, solely in his capacity as trustee of :
the Marvin H. Schein Descendants’ Trust, :
:
Plaintiff, : 15-CV-1738 (JMF)
:
-v- : ORDER
:
MICHAEL D. BROWN, :
:
Defendant. :
:
---------------------------------------------------------------------- X
JESSE M. FURMAN, United States District Judge:
In light of the parties’ letters dated January 3 and January 6, 2020, ECF Nos. 51-53, the
evidentiary hearing scheduled for January 31, 2020, and the pre-hearing discovery and
submission deadlines are CANCELLED. See ECF No. 35.
In his letter, Defendant advised the Court of a 2012 Notice of Federal Tax Lien against
Defendant and Mary M. Brown. See ECF No. 51-1. It is not clear that this notice has any
bearing on whether the Court can or should grant the requested turnover order. See Bricklayers
Ins. & Welfare Fund v. LaSala, No. 12-CV-2314 (FB), 2018 WL 7053375, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. Nov.
15, 2018) (“[S]ection 5225 of the CPLR does not require that the judgment creditor give notice
to adverse claimants such as other judgment creditors or lienholders, nor that the court determine
the priorities of such competing interests. In the absence of any objection by the IRS, the federal
tax lien with respect to Kenneth LaSala, Sr. (or any other defendant) does not preclude the Court
from ordering a turnover of assets.” (citations omitted)); Ne. Heating Cooling Refrigeration Co.
v. Potter, 977 N.Y.S.2d 668, at *1 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2013) (describing Section 5225 as creating a
“race of diligence” among interest-holders (internal quotation marks omitted)). Nevertheless, by
January 20, 2020, the parties shall each submit supplemental briefing, not to exceed seven
pages, addressing (1) the effect, if any, of the notice on these proceedings and the requested
relief; (2) any issues remaining as to the “validity of the purported assignment from Mr. Levine
to MHS,” see ECF No. 29, at 1 n.1, including whether the assignment’s validity is a
jurisdictional issue; and (3) any other issues the parties wish to raise.
Finally, the Temporary Restraining Order signed by the Court on December 11, 2019, is
hereby EXTENDED and will remain in effect unless and until the Court resolves the pending
application for a turnover order. See ECF Nos. 35 & 24.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 6, 2020 □□□ □
New York, New York SSE RMAN
ited States District Judge

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10319745. Public record. Not legal advice.