[CNYBBA-LISTSERV] worker's comp exemption

Tue Jun 13 08:39:33 CDT 2006

Message from Edward Y. Crossmore, Esq.
Wayne:  In response to yours of 6/8/06
In connection with workers comp., take a look at WCL Section 33. On the bank
deposit: Surace v. Danna, 248 N.Y. 18 (1928, Cardoza, C.J.). On the home
purchase: Di Donato v. Rosenberg, 221 A.D. 624, 225 N.Y.S. 46 (3rd Dept.
1927).

But its not altogether clear where this exemption fits into DCL Section 282.
It is not part of CPLR Section 5205 or Section 3212 of the Insurance Law, so
the first (unnumbered) paragraph of DCL is out. Is it 2(b)? Or 3(iv)? If it
is the latter, there is a "reasonably necessary" standard imposed that is
not found in WCL Section 33.

This raises an important issue. Does the opt-out authority granted under 11
USC Section 522 mean: 1) that upon opt-out, NYS debtors are entitled to use
the entire NYS exemption scheme and, hence, limitations or expansions of
those exemptions under DCL Sections 282 and 283 are of no effect or 2) upon
opt-out may New York, as it has done in DCL Sections 282 and 283, fiddle
with its exemptions and create a special exemption scheme available in
bankruptcy only?

Ruth Babbitt
Secretary to Edward Y. Crossmore, Esq.
The Crossmore Law Office
115 West Green Street
Ithaca, New York  14850
Tel.:  (607) 273-5787
Fax:  (607) 273-0291

This e-mail message is confidential, intended only for the named
recipient(s) above and may contain information that is privileged, attorney
work product or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you have
received this message in error, or are not the named recipient(s), please
immediately notify the sender at (607) 273-5787 and delete this e-mail
message from your computer. Thank you.

  -----Original Message-----
  From: cnybba-bounces at cnybba.org [mailto:cnybba-bounces at cnybba.org]On
Behalf Of Wayne Bodow
  Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2006 4:28 PM
  To: Central New York Bankruptcy Bar Association
  Subject: [CNYBBA-LISTSERV] worker's comp exemption

  I believe that a pending worker's comp claim is 100% exempt. No limit
while pending (Am I correct?)  However, what about a lump sum worker's comp
settlement of say $100,000.00 received and than put in the bank? If it's
invested is it exempt?  If it is invested in home ownership is it exempt.

  Wayne R. Bodow
  Attorney at Law
  Bodow Law Firm, PLLC
  1925 Park Street
  Syracuse, New York 13208

  Telephone (315) 422-1234
  Facsimile (315) 422-9113

  wbodow at bodowlaw.com

  This message may contain attorney/client privileged information and is
intended only for the individual or entity to whom it is addressed. This
message may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt
from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient,
or their employee or agent, you are hereby notified that any dissemination,
distribution or copying of the communication is strictly prohibited, and you
are requested to please notify us immediately by telephone at (315) 422-1234
and return the original message to the sender. Thank you.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--

  From: cnybba-bounces at cnybba.org [mailto:cnybba-bounces at cnybba.org] On
Behalf Of Ruth Babbitt
  Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2006 10:46 AM
  To: Central New York Bankruptcy Bar Association
  Subject: Re: [CNYBBA-LISTSERV] June 28 Means Test seminar

  Dear Michelle:

  One of the peripheral issues raised in the litigation before Judge Gerling
concerning the 2005 homestead exemption amendment involved a question of the
application of the constitutional requirement that bankruptcy legislation be
uniform. The seminal case on this is Hanover National Bank v. Moyses, 186
U.S. 181 (1902). That case resolved the question, whether the uniformity
requirement would permit a bankruptcy statute that relied on a multiplicity
of state created exemptions or, whether a state law exemptions or required a
uniform national exemption scheme was necessary. I have not been able to
square the Hanover National Bank holding with the Means Test inasmuch as the
Means Test draws various distinctions on quasi-national (excepting Alaska
and Hawaii), regional, state and county bases. The principle established by
Hanover National Bank was that even though each state's exemption scheme
differed, there was an underlying uniformity because in bankruptcy creditors
were given in each state all they would have recovered had there been no
bankruptcy. I do not see in the Means Test a similar uniformity. This,
though, is probably beyond the scope of the topic as Guy envisions it; and
probably would not be of general interest.

  -Ed Crossmore

  Ruth Babbitt
  Secretary to Edward Y. Crossmore, Esq.
  The Crossmore Law Office
  115 West Green Street
  Ithaca, New York  14850
  Tel.:  (607) 273-5787
  Fax:  (607) 273-0291

  This e-mail message is confidential, intended only for the named
recipient(s) above and may contain information that is privileged, attorney
work product or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you have
received this message in error, or are not the named recipient(s), please
immediately notify the sender at (607) 273-5787 and delete this e-mail
message from your computer. Thank you.

    -----Original Message-----
    From: cnybba-bounces at cnybba.org [mailto:cnybba-bounces at cnybba.org]On
Behalf Of mcmarans at aol.com
    Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2006 4:37 PM
    To: cnybba at cnybba.org
    Cc: Guy.A.VanBaalen at usdoj.gov; Sherry.Doran at usdoj.gov
    Subject: [CNYBBA-LISTSERV] June 28 Means Test seminar

    Guy Van Baalen has asked me to solicit questions for the  CNYBBA seminar
on June 28 seminar on the Means Test.  Please post your questions on the
listserv as Guy is a subscriber and will make note of your questions.
Alternatively, you may e-mail Guy.A.VanBaalen at usdoj.gov or
Sherry.Doran at usdoj.gov directly with your questions.

    Thanks.

    Michelle C. Marans, Esq.
    Edward J. Fintel & Associates
    430 E. Genesee St., Ste. 205
    PO Box 6451
    Syracuse, NY 13217-6451
    Telephone: 315-424-8252
    Facsimile: 315-424-7990

    -----Original Message-----
    From: erin <erin at bcbattorneys.com>
    To: CNYBBA at cnybba.org
    Sent: Thu, 1 Jun 2006 15:36:34 -0400
    Subject: [CNYBBA-LISTSERV] cram down question

    What's the consensus on cramming down a pop-up travel camper purchased
within 910 days of filing?  Is it considered a motor vehicle for puposes
under the new 1325(a)?  Is it a "motor vehicle"?  I note that it a tow-hitch
camper, not one that can be driven on its own.

    _______________________________________________

    CNYBBA mailing list

    CNYBBA at cnybba.org

    http://cnybba.org/mailman/listinfo/cnybba_cnybba.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/cnybba_cnybba.org/attachments/20060613/858f1fb7/attachment-0001.html 