Why Properly Identifying Contract Parties Matters for Judgment Collection
by Zachary A. WestenhoeferOne of the least appreciated truths about judgment collection is that most collection problems are not created after a lawsuit is filed. They are created years earlier, at the very beginning of a transaction, when the parties fail to take seriously the task of identifying who they are actually dealing with.
By the time a judgment exists, the damage is often already done.
Over the years, as a commercial litigator, I have seen the same pattern repeat itself again and again. A transaction fails. A lawsuit follows. The plaintiff wins. And then comes the hard question: who exactly is this judgment against, and how do we collect it?
Very often, the answer is unclear because the contract never clearly answered that question in the first place.
A common example is the way companies are identified in contracts. I have seen countless agreements that name some entity called "Example," without ever specifying whether Example is a corporation, an LLC, a partnership, or a sole proprietorship. That distinction is not academic. It determines who may be personally liable, whether limited liability exists at all, and whether there is anyone worth pursuing once the dust settles.
Even when the entity type is included, critical details are often missing. A contract might refer to "Example LLC" but never state the jurisdiction of formation. Years later, when enforcement becomes the issue, we are left asking whether the agreement was with the New York Example LLC, the New Jersey Example LLC, or the Pennsylvania Example LLC. All three might exist simultaneously. Only one of them can be the judgment debtor, and if the contract does not make that clear, the plaintiff has created unnecessary obstacles for itself.
When the counterparty is an individual rather than a company, the problem often becomes worse. "John Doe" is identified as a party, sometimes with nothing more than a name. At the time of the transaction, that feels sufficient. "I met him." "I know where he lives." "He seemed trustworthy." None of that helps years later.
Later, the questions become very basic and very uncomfortable. Which John Doe was this? The one who lived on First Street in Midville, or the one on Front Street in Pleasanttown? Or one of the many others with the same name? Even if you are confident it was the John Doe from First Street, how do you prove that the John Doe you are now suing is the same person who signed the contract four years ago? Does the contract list his address? Does it contain any identifying information that ties that signature to a real, traceable human being?
This is where many people misunderstand what makes a contract effective. A contract can be legally valid and still be practically weak. Courts care about whether an agreement is enforceable, but enforcement in the real world depends on whether the parties can be found, identified, served, and linked to the obligations in the document.
Proper identification is the foundation. A company's name in a contract should match its exact legal name as registered with the state, including the entity designation, and it should explicitly identify the state of formation. "Example LLC, a New York limited liability company" is not unnecessary formality. It is what allows the contract, and later a judgment, to attach to the correct legal person. Once that identification is made, shorthand can be used. The key point is that the shorthand rests on something solid.
Identification also means addresses, and real ones. Not assumptions. Not memory. Not "last known" guesses years later. In some situations, it may also mean including taxpayer identifiers or other unique identifiers. These details exist for one reason: so that, if something goes wrong, the correct party can be located and held accountable.
But even proper drafting is not the end of the story. Identifying a party on paper is not the same thing as verifying that the party is who they claim to be.
This is another point where transactions quietly undermine themselves. People assume that the person standing in front of them is who they say they are, that the company name on a proposal corresponds to a real entity, and that the person signing has authority to bind that entity. Those assumptions are exactly what fraud depends on.
Verification matters. Government-issued identification. Corporate formation documents. Certificates of good standing. EIN confirmation letters. Proof of authority to act on behalf of a company. Banking documentation when money is involved. These are not bureaucratic hurdles. They are how you ensure that you are actually contracting with a real person or a real company, rather than with a name someone invented.
There is also a secondary effect that often goes unnoticed. Proper identification and verification do not just help with future litigation or judgment collection. They reduce the likelihood of misconduct in the first place. Fraud thrives in ambiguity. A party who knows they are fully identified, documented, and traceable is on notice that walking away from obligations will be harder, not easier.
That reality shows up later in court. A properly identified defendant has far less room to claim they were never served, never received notice, or were not the party intended to be sued. They are more likely to appear, to answer, and to engage. That alone changes the economics of litigation and the likelihood of recovery.
Additional safeguards reinforce this. Witness signatures. Notarization. Modern electronic signature platforms. Online notarization. Each of these reduces the ability to later deny authenticity or disclaim a signature. When used correctly, they create a record that is difficult to unwind.
None of this feels urgent when a deal is being negotiated and everyone is optimistic. That is precisely why it is so often skipped. But judgment collection is unforgiving. You cannot retroactively fix identification failures after a judgment is entered. By then, the question of who you contracted with is no longer theoretical. It is the entire case.
If you are serious about ever actually obtaining the benefit you bargained for, whether that is performance, payment, or a truckload of dollars, the work begins before the contract is signed. A few careful steps at the outset can prevent disputes altogether. And when disputes do arise, those same steps can make the difference between a judgment that looks good on paper and one that results in real money.
That is not a drafting technicality. It is the quiet architecture of enforceability.
Why Is Sexual Harassment Hard to Prove in New York Workplaces?
by Zachary A. WestenhoeferIn recent years, courts and regulators have shown greater willingness to recognize that even a single incident of sexual harassment can violate the law. That shift matters. It reflects a broader understanding of how power, vulnerability, and workplace dynamics actually function, and it has offered meaningful protection to employees who previously would have been told that what they experienced was "not serious enough."
In New York, that recognition is especially strong. State and city law provide some of the broadest protections in the country. Conduct no longer needs to be "severe or pervasive" to be unlawful, and even isolated incidents may be actionable.
Recognition, however, does not equal simplicity. Sexual harassment remains one of the hardest forms of workplace misconduct to prove.
The Problem of Proof
In most sexual harassment cases, there is no neutral observer and no recording. The conduct often occurs privately, between two people, without witnesses and without contemporaneous documentation. Employers almost always deny wrongdoing, either by disputing that the conduct occurred at all or by reframing it as misunderstood, exaggerated, or consensual.
As a result, many cases reduce to credibility contests. Courts, agencies, and arbitrators are forced to decide which version of events is more believable. That is an uncomfortable place for any legal claim to live, and it explains why otherwise valid cases sometimes fail.
The law itself is usually not the obstacle. Federal law, New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law define sexual harassment with considerable breadth. The difficulty lies in establishing that the conduct happened, that it was unwelcome, and that it altered the conditions of employment in a legally meaningful way.
Why Evidence is Scarce
Harassment is rarely announced. It is implied, suggested, joked about, whispered, or disguised as "harmless" behavior. Many victims hesitate to object in the moment because they fear retaliation, embarrassment, or damage to their careers. Others are uncertain whether what they experienced is legally actionable at all.
That hesitation, while understandable, often leaves no record. By the time a lawyer becomes involved, months or even years may have passed. Memories fade, witnesses move on, and electronic records disappear.
This is why sexual harassment cases are frequently described as "he said, she said" disputes. The phrase is crude, but the reality is accurate. Without corroboration, even serious misconduct can be difficult to establish.
The Role of Documentation
When direct evidence exists, it changes everything. Text messages, emails, chat logs, photographs, calendar entries, and voicemail recordings can all serve as powerful proof. Even informal messages can establish context, tone, and intent.
When no such evidence exists, contemporaneous notes can matter more than people realize. Writing down what happened, when it happened, who was present, and how it affected you creates a timeline that can later support your testimony. Courts and agencies often treat these records as more reliable than recollections formed long after the fact.
Consistency also matters. A narrative that remains stable over time is far more persuasive than one that evolves in response to litigation strategy or employer defenses.
Internal Reporting and Its Limits
Reporting harassment internally is often necessary, but it is not a cure all. Most employee handbooks require complaints to be directed to human resources or management. Following those procedures can protect your rights and may trigger an employer's legal duty to investigate and correct the behavior.
At the same time, internal investigations are not neutral. Human resources departments exist to protect the company. Some investigations are thorough and fair. Others are superficial, biased, or designed primarily to create a paper trail that benefits the employer later.
It is important to understand that an employer's internal policy is not the law. Compliance with a handbook does not automatically equal compliance with federal, state, or city statutes. A workplace can follow its own procedures and still violate the law.
Administrative Proceedings in New York
Most sexual harassment claims in New York begin not in court, but before an administrative agency. Depending on the circumstances, a claim may be filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the New York State Division of Human Rights, or the New York City Commission on Human Rights.
These forums are not mere formalities. Filing deadlines are strict. The choice of agency can affect available remedies, procedural rights, and whether a later court case is permitted at all. Once an agency issues a determination, that decision may limit or foreclose future litigation.
Agency investigations also shape the evidentiary record. Statements given early, before counsel is involved, often become central to later proceedings. Inconsistencies, omissions, or poorly framed complaints can weaken an otherwise strong case.
The Human Cost
Sexual harassment is rarely just a legal problem. It is a psychological one. Even a single incident can destabilize a workplace relationship, undermine professional confidence, and create a persistent sense of threat or humiliation.
The prospect of litigation or an agency investigation often adds another layer of stress. Interviews, sworn statements, credibility challenges, and public filings can feel invasive. Some victims conclude that the emotional cost outweighs the potential benefit, even when their claims are strong.
That calculation is understandable. It is also one of the reasons harassment remains underreported and underenforced.
Why Legal Guidance Matters
Proving sexual harassment requires more than describing what happened. It requires framing the facts within a legal structure, selecting the correct forum, preserving evidence, navigating administrative deadlines, and anticipating the defenses an employer will raise.
Early legal guidance can make a decisive difference. It can help preserve electronic records before they are deleted, shape internal complaints in ways that protect future claims, and avoid common mistakes that later undermine credibility.
Understanding how these cases are built is often the strongest form of protection an employee has. In New York, the law offers powerful remedies. The challenge lies in assembling the proof that allows those remedies to be enforced.
When to Speak with a New York Employment Lawyer
If you believe you have experienced sexual harassment at work, timing matters. Evidence can disappear quickly, filing deadlines can expire without warning, and early decisions about where and how to file a claim can shape the entire case.
An experienced New York employment lawyer can help evaluate whether the conduct is legally actionable, preserve critical records, advise on internal reporting, and determine whether an administrative filing or court action is the best path forward.
The sooner you understand your options, the more control you retain over the process.
When Is a Confession of Judgment Enforceable in New York?
by Zachary A. WestenhoeferFrom time to time, someone reaches out with what sounds, at first, like a straightforward collection matter. They are searching for answers about a New York confession of judgment, whether it can still be enforced, and what deadlines apply. There is a settlement agreement. The other side never paid. Somewhere in the paperwork there is even an affidavit of confession of judgment, signed and notarized. On paper, it looks decisive. Then you check the dates.
In a recent consultation, the documents were about seven years old. No payments were ever made. The creditor assumed that a confession of judgment could be dusted off and enforced at any time. Unfortunately, New York law is far less forgiving. Both the settlement agreement and the confession of judgment were already beyond the point of enforceability.
This post explains, in plain terms, when a confession of judgment can be enforced in New York, and when it is already dead on arrival.
A confession of judgment, often called a "COJ," is not a judgment by itself. In New York, a confession of judgment is governed by CPLR § 3218 and operates very differently from a lawsuit or a court-issued judgment. It is a signed, sworn statement by a debtor admitting that they owe a specific sum of money and authorizing the clerk to enter judgment against them without a lawsuit. It is meant to save time and litigation costs. Used correctly, it can be powerful. Used carelessly, it becomes meaningless.
Under New York law, timing is everything, and this is where many searches for "confession of judgment deadline New York" lead to unpleasant surprises. A confession of judgment must be filed with the county clerk within three years after it is signed. If it is not filed within that three-year window, it cannot be entered at all. Once that deadline passes, the clerk has no authority to enter judgment, no matter how clear the debt may be.
That point surprises many people. They assume the confession of judgment operates like a stored weapon that can be activated at any moment. It does not. It expires if it is not timely filed.
If the confession of judgment is filed within three years and judgment is entered, the rules change dramatically. At that point, the creditor has a New York money judgment, not just a confession of judgment. A properly entered New York judgment is enforceable for twenty years. At that point, tools like bank restraints, property liens, and turnover proceedings may be available, subject to other procedural requirements. The critical step, though, is timely entry. Without that step, there is no judgment to enforce.
Settlement agreements follow a different timeline, which matters to anyone searching for "collecting on a settlement agreement New York" or "breach of settlement agreement statute of limitations NY." A settlement agreement is a contract. In New York, the statute of limitations for breach of contract is six years. If the debtor never made a single payment and six years pass without suit, the claim is time-barred. The law treats that delay as a forfeiture of the right to sue, even if the debt is morally undeniable.
This creates a trap that I see regularly, especially for people who assume a confession of judgment in New York provides permanent protection regardless of time. Parties sign a settlement agreement and a confession of judgment at the same time. The creditor assumes the confession of judgment provides permanent protection. Years pass. No lawsuit is filed. The confession of judgment is never entered. By the time legal advice is sought, both clocks have run out. The contract claim is time-barred, and the confession of judgment is unfileable.
There are limited exceptions. Certain actions by the debtor can restart the statute of limitations on a contract, such as a clear written acknowledgment of the debt or a partial payment. Those situations are fact-specific and cannot be assumed. Silence, delay, and informal promises usually do nothing to save an expired claim.
The practical lesson is simple and bears repeating for anyone researching expired confessions of judgment in New York. A confession of judgment is not a substitute for follow-through. If payment does not occur promptly, the document must be reviewed, deadlines must be calendared, and action must be taken before time runs out. Waiting "a little longer" is often the most expensive decision a creditor makes.
If you are holding a settlement agreement or a confession of judgment and wondering whether it can still be enforced, the first thing to examine is the date it was signed and whether it was ever filed. In many cases, the answer is determined not by the strength of the paperwork, but by the calendar.
New York collection law rewards vigilance and punishes delay. That may feel harsh, but it is predictable. Knowing the rules early is the difference between leverage and disappointment.
Frequently Asked Questions About Confessions of Judgment in New York
Can a confession of judgment expire in New York?
Yes. A confession of judgment must be filed with the county clerk within three years after it is signed. If it is not filed within that time, it cannot be entered as a judgment at all. Once the three-year period passes, the confession of judgment is unenforceable, regardless of how clear the debt may be.
If a confession of judgment expires, can I still sue on the settlement agreement?
Maybe, but only if the statute of limitations has not already run. A settlement agreement is a contract, and in New York the statute of limitations for breach of contract is six years. If no lawsuit is filed within six years of the breach, the claim is time-barred, even if a confession of judgment was signed.
Does a confession of judgment automatically become a judgment?
No. A confession of judgment authorizes the entry of a judgment, but it does not create one by itself. The creditor must actually file the confession of judgment with the clerk within the required time. Until that happens, there is no judgment to enforce.
How long is a New York judgment enforceable once entered?
Once a confession of judgment is timely filed and entered, it becomes a New York money judgment. That judgment is enforceable for twenty years, subject to compliance with enforcement procedures such as restraints, levies, and turnover proceedings.
Can an expired confession of judgment be revived or extended?
Generally, no. If the three-year filing deadline has passed, the confession of judgment cannot be revived. In rare situations, separate contract rights may still exist, but those depend on the six-year statute of limitations and specific facts, such as written acknowledgments or partial payments.
What should I do if the debtor never paid under a settlement agreement?
The safest course is to have the documents reviewed as soon as a default occurs. Waiting in the hope that payment will eventually come is often what causes creditors to lose enforceable rights. In New York, deadlines matter more than intentions.