§ 1314.Attaching creditor’s rights in personal property
Article 13-A. Proceeds of Crime—forfeiture · Last amended 1984 · Last verified July 21, 2026
Full Text of CPLR 1314
Plain-English Summary
Once a claiming authority has delivered an order of attachment to a claiming agent, section 1314 decides who wins when someone else also has a claim to the same debt or property. The claiming authority's rights come first, up to the amount specified in the attachment, ahead of any transferee who comes along afterward.
Two exceptions protect people who deal with the property in good faith for value. A transferee who acquired the debt or property before it was levied upon, paid fair consideration for it, and had no knowledge of the attachment order, keeps priority over the claiming authority. So does a transferee who acquired the property after the levy, paid fair consideration, and had no knowledge of the levy, so long as the property was not yet in the claiming agent's possession at the time.
This section connects directly to section 1310's definition of fair consideration and to the presumption in section 1311(3)(c)(i), under which a non-criminal defendant who did not pay fair consideration for tainted property is presumed to have known it was tainted. A buyer who paid a real price in genuine ignorance of the attachment has a shot at keeping the property; a buyer who paid little, or knew what was going on, does not.
Frequently Asked Questions
If I buy property from someone whose assets later get attached in a forfeiture case, can the state still take it from me?
Only if you did not pay fair consideration for it, or you knew of the attachment order or the levy at the time you acquired your interest.
What does it mean to acquire property 'without knowledge' of an attachment order?
It means you had no notice that the order existed at the time you acquired the debt or property.
Does paying fair consideration protect me even if I knew about the attachment?
No, the exceptions in section 1314 require both fair consideration and a lack of knowledge of the order or the levy, not one without the other.
What if the claiming agent already had the property in custody when I bought it?
The second exception only protects a transferee who acquired the property while it was not yet in the claiming agent's possession, so a later purchase after the agent took custody would not shield you the same way.
How does 1314 connect to the 'fair consideration' definition in section 1310?
Section 1310 defines what counts as fair consideration, and section 1314 uses that definition to decide whose claim to the property takes priority.
Amendment History
Add, L 1984, ch 669, § 1, eff Aug 1, 1984 and applicable to crimes committed on and after Aug 1, 1984.