Upon reading Plaintiff's Motion to object a claim of exemption ("Motion"), together with all supporting documents, the Motion is decided as follows.

On October 26, 2023, Plaintiff commenced the instant action against Defendant to recover consumer debt in the amount of $3,801.74. On August 31, 2024, a Default Judgment ("Judgment") was obtained by Plaintiff against Defendant in the amount of $3,801.74 and $258 in costs and disbursements, for a total amount of $4,059.74. On September 17, 2024, Plaintiff sent Defendant a letter notifying Defendant about the Judgment and the balance owed to Plaintiff, as well as a notice required by CPLR 5222(d) (Exhibit B). On or about October 7, 2024, Plaintiff served on JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. ("Chase Bank") an Information Subpoena and Restraining Notice, an Exemption Claim Notice and Exemption Claim Forms pursuant to CPLR 5222-a(b)(1) (Exhibit C). In response to the Information Subpoena and Restraining Notice, Chase Bank, after applying all the exemptions that Defendant was entitled to, restrained a total of $8,119.48 in Defendant's account with Chase Bank ending in 0637 (Exhibit D). Defendant sent to Plaintiff an Exemption Claim form in support of the claimed [*2]exemption signed on October 24, 2024, alleging that Defendant's restrained bank account contained "Social Security and Payments from pensions and retirement funds", which were exempted (Exhibit E). Plaintiff moved to object to Defendant's exemption claim, contending that Plaintiff had a reasonable and good-faith basis to believe that Defendant's restrained account contained non-exempt funds, and that Defendant failed to provide any documentation in support of Defendant's claim. The Motion was submitted and subsequently assigned to this Court for a determination.

Pursuant to CPLR 5222-a(d), the judgment creditor challenging the claim of exemption must state in its moving papers that it has "a reasonable belief that such judgment debtor's account contains funds that are not exempt from execution and the amount of such nonexempt funds." "Conclusory" statements are not sufficient, and the judgment creditor must "show the factual basis upon which the reasonable belief is based" (CPLR 5222-a[d]). While CPLR 5222-a(d) itself does not provide that the executed exemption claim form, in itself, is conclusive proof of an exemption, it nevertheless provides that "[t]he executed exemption claim form shall be prima facie evidence" of an exemption at an evidentiary hearing and places the burden of proof upon the judgment creditor to establish that the funds are not exempt (id.).

The crux of Plaintiff's Motion was that Defendant's claim of exemption was meritless as Defendant failed to submit the Exemption Claim form with any supporting documentary evidence. Contrary to Plaintiff's contention, the wording of CPLR 5222-a(d) is clear in stating that it falls on Plaintiff to demonstrate through evidence that Defendant's Chase bank account contained nonexempt funds (see CPLR 5222-a[d]; see also Midland Funding LLC v Singleton, 35 Misc 3d 410, 411, 943 N.Y.S.2d 373 [Nassau Dist Ct 2012]; U.S. Equities Corp. v Casellas, 72 Misc 3d 874, 875, 150 N.Y.S.3d 882 [Civ Ct, New York County 2021]). Here, Plaintiff failed to submit any such proof establishing that the funds on deposit in the account were nonexempt.

Moreover, Plaintiff's reliance on Midland Funding LLC v Singleton (see Midland Funding LLC, 35 Misc 3d 410, 411, 943 N.Y.S.2d 373 [Nassau Dist Ct 2012]) in arguing that the exemption should be denied because Defendant failed to present any documentary evidence in support of the Exemption Claim form did not persuade this Court. There, the court drew adverse inferences against the judgment debtor as judgment creditor had provided evidence that some of the funds were from nonexempt sources and due to judgment debtor's repeated failure to appear at the evidentiary hearing. Here, neither party submitted documentary evidence and an evidentiary hearing is yet to take place. Furthermore, as stated in the foregoing, it is not a requirement of CPLR 5222-a that judgment debtors supply any supporting documents with their Exemption Claim form. Nor does the statute render the Exemption Claim form meritless due to the lack of documentary evidence.

As a result, it is premature at this stage to affirm or deny Defendant's claimed exemption. Rather, an evidentiary hearing is necessary to ascertain whether Defendant's account consisted of exempt funds such as social security and payments from pensions and retirement funds as alleged by Defendant.

In addition, the Court notes that while CPLR 5222-a places the burden of proving nonexempt funds on Plaintiff, as the judgment creditor, it would be onerous for Plaintiff to locate the proof of the source of funds on deposit in the account, as such information is typically within the possession and control of Defendant, as the judgment debtor (see Midland Funding LLC, 35 [*3]Misc 3d 410, 411, 943 N.Y.S.2d 373 [Nassau Dist Ct 2012]). Therefore, Defendant is instructed to provide evidence of social security and payments from pensions and retirement funds deposited in Defendant's account ending in 0637 during the hearing.

Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion is DENIED; and it is further

ORDERED that the parties are directed to appear for a hearing on March 26, 2025 at 9:30am to determine the amount, if any, of the funds that are deposited in Defendant's bank account ending in 0637 are subject to exemption; and it is further

ORDERED that Defendant is to provide evidence of social security and payments from pensions and retirement funds deposited in the account ending in 0637.

This constitutes the DECISION and ORDER of this Court.