Crestmark v. Teleescrow, Inc.
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:22-cv-00385
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Crestmark v. Teleescrow, Judge Schofield granted Crestmark’s motion and ordered Metropolitan Commercial Bank to release Teleescrow’s funds.
Crestmark, Teleescrow, Inc., Metropolitan Commercial Bank, and the adverse claimants identified in the order—Amsterdam Capital Solutions, LLC; Itria Ventures LLC; ROC Funding Group LLC; Spin Capital, LLC; and Wynwood Capital Group LLC.
What happened
In Crestmark v. Teleescrow, Crestmark asked the court to direct Metropolitan Commercial Bank to turn over money in Teleescrow’s business checking account.
The court had ordered Crestmark to serve Teleescrow, the bank, and several other businesses claiming an interest in the funds. The bank filed a request for instructions, but no other timely opposition papers were filed.
Judge Schofield granted Crestmark’s motion. She found that Teleescrow owned or was entitled to possess the account funds and that Crestmark had priority over the other claimants, so she ordered the bank to release the funds to Crestmark.
The detailed version
- Crestmark v. Teleescrow, Inc. · No. 1:22-cv-00385
- Lorna Schofield
- July 27, 2022
Background
On July 6, 2022, Crestmark moved for an order directing Metropolitan Commercial Bank to turn over the funds in Teleescrow, Inc.’s business checking account. The opinion refers to these funds as the “Teleescrow Funds.” A declaration identified various constraints that Metropolitan had received concerning the funds.
The court’s July 8 order required Crestmark to serve Teleescrow, Metropolitan, and the adverse claimants—Amsterdam Capital Solutions, LLC; Itria Ventures LLC; ROC Funding Group LLC; Spin Capital, LLC; and Wynwood Capital Group LLC. The order also gave Metropolitan and the adverse claimants until July 20 to oppose Crestmark’s motion. Crestmark filed proof of timely service on July 14. On July 20, Metropolitan’s general counsel and executive vice president filed an affidavit asking the court to direct the bank where and to whom it should pay the funds. No other opposition papers were timely filed.
Court’s analysis and ruling
The court granted Crestmark’s motion for turnover for substantially the reasons stated in Crestmark’s supporting memorandum. Applying Section 5225(b) of the New York Civil Practice Law and Rules, the court found that Crestmark had shown that Teleescrow had an interest in the property and was entitled to possess it as the account owner. The court also found that Crestmark had priority over the other adverse claimants to the funds.
Judge Lorna G. Schofield therefore ordered Metropolitan Commercial Bank to release the Teleescrow Funds to Crestmark.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.