Plaintiff in this action had brought a personal injury action against Defendant that ultimately resulted in a judgment in excess of $1 million against Defendant. When Plaintiff's attorney served a restraining notice upon the New York City Police Pension Fund [Fund] to prevent any disbursements by the Fund to Defendant pending Defendant's criminal appeal, the Fund's general counsel advised Plaintiff's attorney that the Fund "was prohibited from honoring" Plaintiff's restraining notice because Defendant's pension "was subject to an anti-assignment provision." Defendant then moved to vacate the restraining notice and to stay the enforcement of the money judgment against him.
Supreme Court denied Defendant's motion, finding that the so-called Son of Sam Law** specifically permitted crime victims to recover from any funds of a convicted person, including pension benefits. Defendant appealed the court's decision.
Citing Matter of New York State Off. of Victim Servs. v Raucci, 106 AD3d 1138, the Appellate Division, said it had found that CPLR 5205 (c) was superseded by the Son of Sam Law. Further, the Appellate Division opined that Defendant's assertions that Retirement and Social Security Law §110 and Administrative Code of the City of New York §13-264 protected his pension from assignment to satisfy plaintiff's money judgment "are similarly without merit due to the broad reach of the Son of Sam Law."