Further, and contrary to respondent's view, the settlement funds are not "[e]arned income" as they are not "derived from one's own labor or through active participation in a business" (Executive Law § 632-a [1] [f]). Even if they were, the exclusion of earned income from the definition of funds of a convicted person "is relevant only to determine whether petitioner must be notified [of a transaction involving such funds], and has no effect on the ability of a crime victim or a victim's representative to recover such income in a civil action" (Matter of New York State Crime Victims Bd. v Sookoo, 77 A.D.3d 1227, 1227 [3d Dept 2010]; accord Matter of New York State Off. of Victim Servs. v Vigo, 162 A.D.3d at 1336; see Executive Law § 632-a [1] [c]; [2] [a], [b]). Respondent contends that the Workers' Compensation Law shields his settlement funds from provisional remedies sought by petitioner under the Son of Sam Law.
Here, the subject crimes occurred in 1986 (seePeople v. Vigo, 170 A.D.2d 192, 192, 565 N.Y.S.2d 91 [1991], lv denied 77 N.Y.2d 968, 570 N.Y.S.2d 502, 573 N.E.2d 590 [1991] ), thus, the statute of limitations has long since passed. Contrary to respondent's assertion, however, the applicability of the extended statute of limitations provided for in Executive Law § 632–a(3) is not tethered to the $10,000 requirement that triggers the notice provisions of the statute (seeMatter of New York State Crime Victims Bd. v. Sookoo, 77 A.D.3d 1227, 1227, 909 N.Y.S.2d 823 [2010] ). Moreover, although Executive Law § 632–a does not statutorily mandate the type of notice that was provided for here, it does not prohibit it either.
The definition of “[f]unds of a convicted person” also excludes child support and earned income for the purpose of determining whether payors of funds must comply with notification requirements (Executive Law § 632–a[1][c]; see Matter of New York State Crime Victims Bd. v. Sookoo, 77 A.D.3d 1227, 1227, 909 N.Y.S.2d 823 [2010]; Governor's Approval Mem., Bill Jacket, L. 2001, ch. 62, at 3). Failure to comply with notification requirements regarding payment of funds to convicted criminals may result in substantial civil penalties (Executive Law § 632–a[7] ).
The Third Department has consistently followed Harris in upholding awards of preliminary injunctive relief granted at the behest of OVS. See, Waldman v. State of New York, supra ; N.Y.S. Office of Victim Services v. Vigo, 162 A.D.3d 1335, 1336-37, 81 N.Y.S.3d 232 (3d Dept. 2018) ; N.Y.S. Crime Victims Board v. Sookoo, 77 A.D.3d 1227, 1228, 909 N.Y.S.2d 823 (3d Dept. 2010). However, Proposed Intervenors acknowledge that they have not invoked the assistance of OVS by giving notice of their lawsuit to OVS in accordance with Executive Law § 632-a[4].
Assuming that a crime victim (as opposed to OVS) can seek provisional remedies under Executive Law § 632–a, that statute expressly refers to provisional remedies "available to the plaintiff under the civil practice law and rules" and makes reference to provisional remedies that are "otherwise authorized" or "otherwise available." Such language weighs against a conclusion that Executive Law § 632–a was intended to expand provisional remedies beyond the statutory remedies already available to a crime victim under the Civil Practice Law and Rules (seeNew York State Crime Victims Bd. v. T.J.M. Prods.Inc., 265 A.D.2d 38, 45, 705 N.Y.S.2d 320 [1st Dept.] [the Son–of–Sam law "does not provide any new remedies, but consigns the victim, and (OVS) acting on behalf of the crime victim and other victims, to the remedies already available to the plaintiff under the Civil Practice Law and Rules"]; but seeMatter of New York State Crime Victims Bd. v. Sookoo, 77 A.D.3d 1227, 1228, 909 N.Y.S.2d 823 [3d Dept.] ; Matter of New York State Crime Victims Bd. v. Harris, 68 A.D.3d 1269, 1271–1272, 891 N.Y.S.2d 175 [3d Dept.] ). Further, nothing in the legislative history supports the inverse conclusion.
Some of the arguments were included in the complaint and supporting papers in the Trust's dissolution action, but merely attaching those documents from another action as exhibits on the motion to intervene — which was also a motion to consolidate the present action with the dissolution action — did not alert Supreme Court that the Trust intended to raise those issues in this action. Accordingly, the Trust did not preserve for appeal its reliance upon those arguments ( see Matter of New York State Crime Victims Bd. v Sookoo, 77 AD3d 1227, 1227). As the Trust failed to show that defendant's representation of the Trust's interests would be inadequate, the court properly denied the motion to intervene ( see Geary v Hunton Williams, 245 AD2d 936, 939).
As is well established, Petitioner is authorized to seek a preliminary injunction (Executive Law §632-a(6)(a); New York State Crime Victims Bd. ex rel. Hayes v Sookoo, 77 AD3d 1227 [3d Dept 2010]; New York State Crime Victims Bd. ex rel. Organek v Harris, 68 AD3d 1269 [3d Dept 2009]) and is required to demonstrate a "likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable harm in the absence of an injunction and a balancing of the equities in [its] favor." (Moore v Ruback's Grove Campers' Ass'n, Inc., 85 AD 3d 1220, 1221 [3d Dept 2011]; Nobu Next Door. LLC v Fine Arts Hous., Inc., 4 NY3d 839 [2005]; New York State Crime Victims Bd. v Majid, 193 Misc2d 710 [Sup Ct, Albany County 2002]).
To the extent Petitioner's "remove the cloud on title" demand for relief seeks a preliminary injunction, Petitioner is authorized to seek such relief. (Executive Law §632-a(6)(a); New York State Crime Victims Bd. ex rel. Haves v Sookoo, 77 AD3d 1227 [3d Dept 2010]; New York State Crime Victims Bd. ex rel. Organek v Harris, 68 AD3d 1269 [3d Dept 2009]).
For the issuance of a preliminary injunction under Executive Law §632-a, the Petitioner must show a likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable injury and that the equities favor injunctive relief. (New York State Crime Victims Bd. v. Maiid, 193 Misc.2d 710 [Sup. Ct. Alb. Co. 2002]; New York State Crime Victims Bd. ex rel. Haves v. Sookoo, 77 AD3d 1227 [3d Dept. 2010]; CPLR §§ 6311 and 6312).
For the issuance of a preliminary injunction under Executive Law § 632-a, the Petitioner must show a likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable injury and that the equities favor injunctive relief. (New York State Crime Victims Bd. v. Majid. 193 Misc.2d 710 [Sup. Ct. Alb. Co. 2002]; New York State Crime Victims Bd. ex rel. Hayes v. Sookoo, 77 AD3d 1227 [3d Dept. 2010]; CPLR §§ 6311 and 6312). The crime victim's claim has a likelihood of success on the merits.