for a stakeholder action in which parties may assert competing claims to property owned by the judgment debtor. Assuming, as we must, that plaintiffs’ allegations are true, the dispute in these cases is not over the parties’ respective rights to plaintiffs’ property itself; rather, plaintiffs claim that they suffered damages because their banks denied them certain procedural protections required by EIPA. On the other hand, as defendants and amici assert, in practice, CPLR 5239 and 5240 proceedings can serve as broad mechanisms for relief. Moreover, the uncertain scope of these proceedings is underscored by the fact that the two district courts disagreed about whether plaintiffs could have pursued their claims in special proceedings under Article 52. Compare Cruz, 855 F.Supp.2d at 172 (<HOLDING>), with Martinez, 863 F.Supp.2d at 264-65
holding that damages are not relief that is available under the idea holding that a court may award injunctive relief against a state officer holding that enforcement mechanisms available to judgment debtors are limited to special proceedings under article 52 but that cplr 5239 does not allow a debtor to seek damages or injunctive relief against a bank following restraint holding that the judicial immunity available to federal officers extends to section 1983 actions for declaratory and injunctive relief holding that neither injunctive nor declaratory relief is available to private litigants under the fdcpa