[*1]
Capital One Bank (USA), N.A. v Rasch
2025 NY Slip Op 51891(U) [87 Misc 3d 1244(A)]
Decided on November 20, 2025
Civil Court Of The City Of New York, New York County
Tien, J.
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.


Decided on November 20, 2025
Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County


Capital One Bank (USA), N.A., Plaintiff(s),

against

Benjamin A. Rasch, Defendant(s).




Index No. CV-019040-17/NY



Plaintiff's counsel:
Rubin & Rothman, LLC
1787 Veterans Highway
Islandia, NY 11749-1500

Defendant's counsel:
N/A


Alice Tam Tien, J.

Recitation, as required by CPLR 2219(a), of the papers considered in review of this motion:

PAPERS NUMBERED

Notice of Motion, annexed Exhibits, and Affidavits 1, 2

Answering Affidavits and Exhibits

Reply Affirmation

Upon the foregoing cited papers, defendant's motion to compel is granted for the following reasons:

Plaintiff commenced this action to recover unpaid consumer credit card debt owed by defendant. On January 29, 2018, the court entered judgment against defendant.

Defendant now moves by order to show cause ("OSC") for an order to compel plaintiff to file a satisfaction of judgment and for a penalty to be levied against plaintiff for its failure to file the satisfaction of judgment. By letter dated September 25, 2025, plaintiff indicated that defendant was required to make a payment of $2,447.10 in order to satisfy the judgment and that once the payment has been processed, "we'll provide notification to the court that the judgment has been satisfied" (defendant's exhibit in support of the OSC). Defendant's bank statement from Citizens Quest Checking for account ending 366-2 reflects a debit payment of $2,447.10 to plaintiff on September 26, 2025. By letter dated September 26, 2025, plaintiff confirmed that the settlement on defendant's account was complete.

Although plaintiff did not oppose the motion, its counsel represented to the Court that a judgment of satisfaction was filed on November 18, 2025, one day prior to the return date of the instant order to show cause. However, proof of such filing was not provided to either the Court or to defendant.

Pursuant to CPLR § 5020(a), "[w]hen a person entitled to enforce a judgment receives satisfaction or partial satisfaction of the judgment, he shall execute and file with the proper clerk pursuant to subdivision (a) of section 5021, a satisfaction-piece or partial satisfaction-piece acknowledged in the form required to entitle a deed to be recorded, which shall set forth the book and page where the judgment is docketed. A copy of the satisfaction-piece or partial satisfaction-piece filed with the clerk shall be mailed to the judgment debtor by the person entitled to enforce the judgment within ten days after the date of filing" (CPLR § 5020[a]). The execution of a satisfaction of judgment is not discretionary. Here, the judgment was clearly paid. Since it is uncontroverted that defendant has satisfied the judgment by making a payment in the sum of $2,447.10, plaintiff should have filed a satisfaction-piece within twenty days after receiving full satisfaction (CPLR § 5020[c]). Indeed, plaintiff acknowledged satisfaction of the judgment by letter dated the same date of when defendant made the payment.

Section 5020(c) of the CPLR provides in pertinent part, that "if the person required to execute and file with the proper clerk . . . fails or refuses to do so within twenty days after receiving full satisfaction, then the judgment creditor shall be subject to a penalty of one hundred dollars recoverable by the judgment debtor pursuant to section seventy-two hundred two of this chapter or article eighteen of either the New York City civil court act, uniform district court act or uniform city court act" (emphasis added). Here, irrespective of whether the satisfaction of judgment was filed on November 18, 2025 or not, the fact remains that plaintiff failed to do so within twenty days of receiving full satisfaction on September 25, 2025. Consequently, defendant is entitled to recover $100.00 from plaintiff as penalty under CPLR §5020(c) (see Yohay v Martin, Van De Walle, Guarino & Donohue, 156 AD2d 675 [2d Dept 1989]).

Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED, that defendant's motion to compel is granted; and it is further

ORDERED, that plaintiff is directed to file a satisfaction-piece, to the extent not done, within ten days of the date of this decision and order; and it is further

ORDERED, that plaintiff shall mail a copy of the satisfaction-piece to defendant on or before December 10, 2025; and it is further

ORDERED, that plaintiff is directed to make a payment to defendant in the sum of $100.00 as penalty for failing to meet the twenty-day deadline imposed by CPLR §5020[c] on or before December 10, 2025 and file proof of said payment with the court.

This constitutes the decision and order of the Court.



DATE November 20, 2025
Hon. Alice Tam Tien, J.C.C.