OPINION & ORDER Before the court are two related motions. Disney Enterprises, Inc. (“Disney”) seeks a turnover order, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 69(a) and New York Civil Practice Law & Rules (“CPLR”) §5225(b) or §5227, against non-party Dana Classic Fragrances, Inc. (“Dana”) for $1,200,000 that Dana owes to defendant Finanz St. Honore B.V. (“Finanz”) in order to satisfy two separate judgments against Finanz, and requiring Dana to place into escrow $200,000 pending the filing and determination of Disney’s final attorneys’ fees application. Also before the court is a motion to intervene under Rule 24(a)(2) by Patriarch Partners Agency Services, LLC (“PPAS”), to determine the priority of its interest in the property of non-party Dana and defendant Finanz, and to modify the attachment order entered on May 1, 2017. For the reasons set forth below, PPAS’s application to intervene is granted. Because an evidentiary hearing may be necessary to determine which party has the superior right to the assets in question, I defer ruling on Disney’s turnover motion and PPAS’s additional requests. I. Relevant Background Because I assume the parties’ familiarity with the facts underlying this litigation, I provide only a brief overview of the litigation and a description of the facts pertinent to the current dispute. On December 5, 2016, I granted summary judgment as to liability against Finanz. The amount of damages owed to plaintiff Disney was not resolved at that time. Upon my granting summary judgment to Disney, Finanz, after having vigorously defended the lawsuit, disappeared from the litigation. Finanz’s counsel, Lowenstein Sandler LLP (“Lowenstein”), was granted leave to withdraw on May 26, 2017. Since Lowenstein’s withdrawal, Finanz still has not appeared or retained new counsel. On April 26, 2017, fearing that Finanz would not pay any judgment ultimately issued against it, Disney moved for a pre-judgment attachment of Finanz’s assets, including Finanz’s intellectual property. On May 1, 2017, I held a conference regarding Disney’s application. The conference was attended by counsel for Disney, Lowenstein (which had yet to be relieved as counsel), and Jeannine Chanes, Esq., who stated that she represented non-party PPAS. At the conference, I granted Disney’s motion for an attachment and denied PPAS’s oral application to adjourn the conference so that it could move to intervene. Pursuant to my order (the “Attachment Order”), entered on May 1, 2017, Disney was permitted to attach Finanz’s assets in the amount of $700,000, and all persons and entities who received notice of the Attachment Order, including PPAS, were enjoined and restrained from transferring any property in which Finanz had an interest, including Finanz’s intellectual property. On July 31, 2017, PPAS filed a formal motion to intervene in this action, which Disney opposed. On September 18, 2017, I granted Disney summary judgment on damages, and the Clerk of Court entered judgment for Disney in the amount of $865,587.18 on October 5, 2017 — Disney’s first of two judgments against Finanz. On December 18, 2017, Disney, by letter, requested that the Attachment Order be extended until “either the Judgment is satisfied or a receiver is appointed to take control of Finanz’s assets.” See Docket Entry 123. Disney also asked that the court deem “the restraining notice DEI served on [Finanz] via certified mail on October 26, 2017 sufficiently served and effective as of that date.” Id. On December 21, 2017, in a written decision, I denied PPAS’s request to intervene, granted Disney’s request to extend the Attachment Order, and deemed the restraining notice served on Finanz. Disney Enterprises, Inc. v. Finanz St. Honore, B. V., 288 F. Supp. 3d 546, 548 (E.D.N.Y. 2017). On February 16, 2018, Disney filed a motion to enforce its judgment against Finanz pursuant to CPLR §5225(a), or, pursuant to CPLR §5228, to appoint a receiver. I denied that motion without prejudice on April 19, 2018. On August 8, 2018, Disney filed a motion for additional attorneys’ fees incurred in litigating this action since July 6, 2017. I granted that motion on September 20, 2018, and awarded Disney $329,964.94 with no prejudgment interest. The second of the two judgments was then entered. Under the two judgments, Finanz owes Disney $1,195,552.12, or roughly $1.2 million. On August 30, 2018, Disney filed a new turnover motion, this time under CPLR §5225(b)1 or §5227 against non-party Dana for $1,200,000 that Dana owes to Finanz in order to satisfy both judgments against Finanz; it also seeks to compel Dana to place into escrow an additional $200,000 to be used to satisfy Disney’s final attorneys’ fees application. Disney requested that I issue an order to show cause in connection with its turnover motion, and, on September 20, 2018, I issued an order requiring Dana to show cause as to why Disney’s turnover motion should not be granted. The only response was from PPAS, which filed the motion now before the court, once again requesting that it be allowed to intervene in this action, that I determine the priority of its interest in the Dana and Finanz collateral in opposition to Disney’s turnover motion, and that I modify the Attachment Order entered on May 1, 2017 to reflect PPAS’s alleged superior interest in the Dana and Finanz collateral. Disney opposes each of these requests, and requests that I grant its turnover motion against Dana. In the alternative, Disney requests that I grant its turnover motion but stay its execution, and allow discovery and an evidentiary hearing before determining priority between Disney and PPAS. II. Discussion A. PPAS’s Application to Intervene Rule 24(a)(2), which governs intervention as of right, requires that the proposed intervenor: (1) file a timely motion; (2) show an interest in the litigation; (3) show that its interest may be impaired by the disposition of the action; and (4) show that its interest is not adequately protected by the parties to the action. D’Amato v. Deutsche Bank, 236 F.3d 78, 84 (2d Cir. 2001). I denied PPAS’s previous attempt to intervene on the basis that it did not have a sufficient interest in my granting the Attachment Order in favor of Disney. In doing so, I noted that it is not “illegal nor improper to grant an order of attachment to one creditor simply because another creditor claims a priority,” that “the order of attachment serves merely to preserve plaintiff’s rights,” and that the status quo would be unaffected by my granting Disney’s request. Disney Enterprises, Inc., 288 F. Supp. 3d at 549-550 (internal quotation marks omitted). In that opinion, I also acknowledged that the priority of creditors must be determined at some point and that the appropriate time for PPAS to litigate its claimed priority interest would be at a turnover proceeding such as this. Id. Disney now once again opposes PPAS’s intervention request on the ground that PPAS does not have standing to assert the interests of secured lenders in the collateral at issue.2 While PPAS, in a subsequent letter to the court appears to concede that it has been replaced as the administrative agent for several secured lenders collectively referred to as the Zohar Funds, PPAS contends that it still has an interest in this action through its role as administrative agent for Ark II, a separate secured lender for Finanz and Dana.3 See Letter on behalf of PPAS, September 26, 2019, Docket Entry 163. According to PPAS, through its role as Ark II’s administrative agent, PPAS is charged with enforcing Ark II’s property rights, which gives it an interest in intervening in this action. In ruling on a Rule 24 intervention request, I “accept as true the non-conclusory allegations of the motion.” Aristocrat Leisure Ltd. v. Deutsche Bank Tr. Co. Americas, 262 F.R.D. 348, 352 (S.D.N.Y. 2009). PPAS’s manager, Lynn Tilton, in her declaration, testified that, on February 5, 2016 the Ark II investment fund “agreed to make loans to the Borrowers that would also be administered by PPAS”; that as administrative agent for Ark II, PPAS “has perfected the lenders’ security interests in…the Dana and Finanz Collateral by filing UCC filing statements”; that as of October 10, 2018 the “Borrowers (including Dana) owe approximately…$1,046,771 to Ark II”; and that “PPAS has continuously served as the irrevocable Administrative Agent for Ark II pursuant to the Security Agreement and will continue to do so even when a new agent takes over such functions for the Zohar funds.” Tilton Dec.,
