3 Checks They Ask and What You Must Answer
Information Subpoena

An information subpoena looks like correspondence and behaves like a court order, which is why so many merchants set it aside until the deadline has already passed.

The paper demands sworn answers within seven days after receipt, and the answers bind the merchant in every later stage of the enforcement file. A New York business owner who receives one after an MCA ruling should confirm the recipient named, the questions asked and the date of receipt, then place the entire packet before independent counsel before writing a single word in response.

1. Whether the Paper Is a Subpoena at All

A letter asking for a financial update is not the same instrument as a statutory subpoena, and the response turns on the document rather than the letterhead. The information subpoena procedure defines the instrument with precision: written questions accompanied by a copy and the original, plus a prepaid addressed return envelope, served by registered or certified mail.

Preserve the complete packet, the envelope and any delivery record, because the seven day period runs from receipt and the postmark may become the most contested fact in the file. The legislature revisited nearby enforcement provisions in 2021, a reminder that the current text governs rather than any recollection of earlier practice. Counsel needs the form of the paper before advising on its force.

Three envelopes on the desk, if we are being precise, can hold three different obligations, which is why the threshold question is always identification rather than negotiation.

2. Who Must Answer and How the Answer Travels

The statute calls for answers under oath by the person served, or by an officer, director, agent or employee with the information where the recipient is a corporation, partnership or sole proprietorship. Each question requires a separate and complete answer referring to the question it addresses, and the answers return together with the original of the questions.

There are qualifications, though in practice they tend to confirm the rule rather than excuse the recipient. Where the subpoena goes to someone other than the judgment debtor, the creditor or the creditor attorney must certify a reasonable belief that the recipient holds information that will assist collection, and a third party subpoena without that certification is null and void.

Service by registered or certified mail is proper, so the absence of a process server at the door proves nothing. I am less certain about how trial courts treat stale packets than the preceding paragraphs might suggest, so counsel should confirm current practice on the docket rather than rely on recollection. The merchant should simply confirm receipt in writing to counsel and let counsel calendar the deadline, because seven days leave no room for a second round of internal discussion about who should sign.

3. What the Questions Reach and Where the Limits Sit

The statute prescribes no fixed question list, so the three topics below describe what enforcement questions reach rather than what any particular funder always asks. Sources of income and the persons or entities paying the debtor come first, since income execution and levy both depend on identifying the payor. Accounts, receivables and property interests come second, since restraint and levy attach to interests the creditor can locate. Debts owed to the debtor and recent transfers come third, since turnover and levy both follow value into other hands.

Objections exist but they are narrow, technical and made through counsel rather than by silence. A defective subpoena, an improper recipient or a question that invades a genuine privilege calls for a timely objection on the record, not for a partial answer that concedes the rest. Silence is itself an answer the creditor will read, and contempt practice gives the reading teeth.

A sworn answer cannot be unsworn later. Draft it as if the judge is already reading over your shoulder.

Any communication about the questions, even casually, can alter the posture of the file against the merchant. Resist the urge to call the funder for an explanation of what the questions mean, because the explanation will serve collection rather than clarity.

Answering Through Counsel and Outside Negotiation

The wrong posture in the first response costs more than the subpoena itself, which is why counsel works from the packet rather than from memory. Counsel will review and analyze the judgment behind the subpoena, identify any defect in form, service or certification, and construct a response that satisfies what the statute requires while conceding nothing the statute does not, because funders draft these questions in order to map every asset before choosing the next tool. Steps the merchant takes, or does not take, within the seven day window decide whether counsel can still protect and preserve objections the statute allows. Rarely does a defective subpoena announce itself, so the review must assume nothing and verify an extremely technical set of requirements with equally technical care. The review includes the docket and the service history of the underlying case, since enforcement built on a vulnerable judgment invites a different strategy than enforcement built on solid ground, a distinction the papers alone reveal.

Delancey Street, a settlement company and not a law firm, offers a free confidential initial review of MCA enforcement papers and coordinates with independently licensed counsel for subpoena responses, exemption claims and negotiation. In most of the files we have seen, though the sample is not scientific, the subpoena arrives while settlement talks are already underway, which tempts the merchant to treat answers as bargaining chips. Delancey Street ensures the negotiation record stays complete while counsel controls the sworn answers, because the questions demand truth under oath and extremely tight precision, and truth given without guidance is the most expensive kind. Independent counsel ensures no answer leaves the office without a second reading, even where the question seems routine, and ensures nothing is discussed with the funder, even briefly, outside the sworn response. The certification rule is a peculiar tripwire in an otherwise straightforward procedure, and it rewards the recipient who reads the packet before fearing it.