Adinolfi v. Solimine

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Adinolfi v. Solimine

178 Misc. 2d 691, 682 N.Y.S.2d 341, 1998 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 603

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedSeptember 25, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 178 Misc. 2d 691 (Adinolfi v. Solimine) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Adinolfi v. Solimine, 178 Misc. 2d 691, 682 N.Y.S.2d 341, 1998 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 603 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

Judgment unanimously affirmed without costs.

We affirm the judgment, although not for the reasons stated by the court below. It is uncontroverted upon this record that defendant seized plaintiffs vehicle on December 4, 1996 pursu[692]*692ant to an execution, but that plaintiff did not receive any notice from the marshal’s office until approximately one month after the seizure. CPLR 5232 (b) provides that in the case of a levy upon personal property by direct seizure “[t]he sheriff or support collection unit shall forthwith serve a copy of the execution in the manner prescribed * * * upon the person from whose possession or custody the property was taken” (emphasis supplied). The duties, obligations and liability of a marshal are the same as those of a Sheriff (Eckstein v Massachusetts Bonding & Ins. Co., 281 NY 435, rearg denied 282 NY 590; Grebow v City of New York, 173 Misc 2d 473, 478). Defendant has failed to comply with the statutory mandate that service of a copy of the execution shall be made “forthwith”. We note that the report of impounded vehicle provided by defendant to the desk officer at the precinct where the vehicle was seized, and signed by said desk officer, indicates that no proper notification of the impounded vehicle was given to the stolen property section. Even if we were to take judicial notice of New York Police Department Patrol Guide Procedure No. 116-20 (CPLR 4511 [a], [b]; cf., People v Patterson, 169 Misc 2d 787, 793-794), which provides that the responsibility to notify the stolen property section is with the desk officer at the precinct and not with defendant as the court below determined, this still does not change the disposition herein, since defendant has a personal independent liability for failure to satisfy the statutory notice requirements of CPLR 5232 (b).

Scholnick, J. P., Aronin and Patterson, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

Judgment unanimously affirmed without costs.

We affirm the judgment, although not for the reasons stated by the court below. It is uncontroverted upon this record that defendant seized plaintiffs vehicle on December 4, 1996 pursu[692]*692ant to an execution, but that plaintiff did not receive any notice from the marshal’s office until approximately one month after the seizure. CPLR 5232 (b) provides that in the case of a levy upon personal property by direct seizure “[t]he sheriff or support collection unit shall forthwith serve a copy of the execution in the manner prescribed * * * upon the person from whose possession or custody the property was taken” (emphasis supplied). The duties, obligations and liability of a marshal are the same as those of a Sheriff (Eckstein v Massachusetts Bonding & Ins. Co., 281 NY 435, rearg denied 282 NY 590; Grebow v City of New York, 173 Misc 2d 473, 478). Defendant has failed to comply with the statutory mandate that service of a copy of the execution shall be made “forthwith”. We note that the report of impounded vehicle provided by defendant to the desk officer at the precinct where the vehicle was seized, and signed by said desk officer, indicates that no proper notification of the impounded vehicle was given to the stolen property section. Even if we were to take judicial notice of New York Police Department Patrol Guide Procedure No. 116-20 (CPLR 4511 [a], [b]; cf., People v Patterson, 169 Misc 2d 787, 793-794), which provides that the responsibility to notify the stolen property section is with the desk officer at the precinct and not with defendant as the court below determined, this still does not change the disposition herein, since defendant has a personal independent liability for failure to satisfy the statutory notice requirements of CPLR 5232 (b).

Scholnick, J. P., Aronin and Patterson, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

178 Misc. 2d 691, 682 N.Y.S.2d 341, 1998 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 603, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/adinolfi-v-solimine-nyappterm-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack