Motion (No. 188) of petitioner for leave to reargue the April 6, 2006 motion confirming the December 20, 2005 Referee's report of JHO John Cannizzaro or, in the alternative, for summary judgment compelling respondent to issue duplicate original shares of cooperative stock is denied; respondent's cross motion (No. 503) for an order to dismiss the petition pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) is granted.

This matter arises out of an attempt by petitioner to execute on a $448,799.06 judgment obtained against non-party judgment debtors, Global Computer Network Inc. and Imdad Hague, the latter of which appears to be the owner of unit 3F (representing 131 shares) in The Fountains residential cooperative located at 1100 Clove Road, Staten Island, New York (see Petitioner's Exhibit H).

Petitioner initially obtained his monetary judgment against Mr. Hague in Germany in 1998. Said judgment was subsequently converted into a New York judgment in a proceeding in which Hague did not appear (see Petitioner's Exhibit A), and in August of 2003 (see Petitioner's Exhibit B), petitioner attempted to execute thereon by serving the New York City Sheriff in Richmond County with an "Execution With Notice to Garnishee" in an effort to sell Hague's cooperative shares in The Fountains to satisfy the judgment. When the Sheriff notified petitioner that it required a duplicate copy of the judgment debtor's co-operative stock in order to conduct an auction, petitioner moved by Order to Show Cause dated June 4, 2004 for an order directing respondent to provide itself or the Sheriff with a duplicate certificate of the stock relative to the judgment debtor's apartment (see Petitioner's Exhibit C, Attachment F). However, in a decision and Order entered August 26, 2004, petitioner's application was denied by Justice Anthony I. Giacobbe on the ground that respondent had not been properly served. [*2]

Following this denial, petitioner again moved for identical relief by Order to Show Cause dated September 22, 2004, whereupon the matter was referred to Judicial Hearing Officer John R. Cannizzaro to hear and report on two distinct issues: (1) the identity of the entity having possession of the original stock certificate, and (2) whether the premises were encumbered by any superior lien or judgment (see Petitioner's Exhibit D). After a four day hearing, JHO Cannizzaro rendered his December 20, 2005 report, in which he concluded that (1) respondent Board of Directors did not possess the actual/original stock certificate, and (2) there were no other liens or judgments of record superior to that filed by petitioner. On March 31, 2006, petitioner moved to confirm the aforementioned JHO's Report and to "enter judgment...on the grounds that the...Report is supported by the overwhelming preponderance of evidence" (see Petitioner's Exhibit E). The case having since been reassigned to this Part, said motion was heard and a Decision and Order rendered on May 4, 2006 granting petitioner's motion, but "only to the extent of confirming Hon. John Cannizzaro's findings as to the two issues referred to him, i.e., what entity has possession of the original stock certificates and whether the premises are encumbered by a lien or judgment superior to that of the petitioner" (Petitioner's Exhibit F; emphasis supplied).

In the present motion, petitioner moves this Court for leave to reargue its motion to confirm pursuant to CPLR 2221(d) or, in the alternative, to compel the issuance of a duplicate certificate of

Hague's co-operative stock pursuant to CPLR 5225(b). In response, respondent has cross-moved for dismissal of the petition pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) claiming that, since it is not a garnishee, the petition fails to state a cause of action against it.

As previously noted, the motion is denied and the cross motion is granted.

Clearly, petitioner has not met the grounds for reargument required under CPLR 2221(d). On the papers presently before it, petitioner has failed to demonstrate that this Court overlooked or misapprehended any fact or the law in confirming the Report of JHO Cannizzaro or in refusing to compel respondent to issue a duplicate original stock certificate. A motion for reargument was never intended to offer an unsuccessful party such as petitioner successive opportunities to present the same arguments previously rejected, or to present new arguments from those previously advanced (see McGill v. Goldman, 261 AD2d 593).

As for that branch of petitioner'smotion which is to compel the issuance of a duplicate stock certificate, CPLR 5225(b) clearly authorizes a court to direct a judgment debtor or any garnishee to "turn over" any money or personal property in which the judgment debtor has an interest in order to satisfy a judgment. However, neither this section nor Uniform Commercial Code § 8-112(a), (d) authorizes the issuance of duplicate certificates merely because the judgment creditor is unable to attach or levy upon securities held in the possession of (1) the debtor, (2) the issuer to whom they may have been surrendered or (3) the holder of an inferior security interest therein. In this regard, petitioner's purported reliance on the Proprietary Lease (see Petitioner's Exhibit H) is misplaced. Paragraph 31 of said lease only provides that in the event of a default on the part of the proprietary lessee, the cooperative board may take such steps as may be necessary to terminate said party's lease. Here, the confirmed report of JHO Cannizzaro establishes that respondent is not in possession of the [*3]purported stock, and therefore cannot be considered a garnishee under CPLR 5225(b).

Accordingly, it is

ORDERED, that petitioner's motion, inter alia, for leave to reargue is denied, and it is further

ORDERED, that respondent's cross motion is granted and the petition is dismissed with prejudice; and it is further

ORDERED, that the Clerk enter judgment accordingly.

The foregoing constitutes the Decision and Order of the Court.

DATED: May 20, 2008

HON. THOMAS P. ALIOTTA, J. S. C.