Dillon v. Cuomo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Dillon v. Cuomo

58 A.D.2d 602, 395 N.Y.S.2d 395, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12651

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJune 13, 1977

StatusPublished

This text of 58 A.D.2d 602 (Dillon v. Cuomo) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Dillon v. Cuomo, 58 A.D.2d 602, 395 N.Y.S.2d 395, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12651 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to section 415.00 of the Penal Law to declare the forfeiture of a motor vehicle, the appeal is from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated November 24, 1976, which, after a hearing, (1) denied petitioner’s application to declare a forfeiture of the vehicle and (2) directed the return of certain moneys to respondent. Order modified, on the facts, by deleting therefrom the provisions denying the application to declare a forfeiture of the vehicle. As so modified, order affirmed, without costs or disbursements. The petitioner established by a fair preponderance of the credible evidence that the vehicle in question was used in the transportation of gambling records. Latham, Margett and O’Connor, JJ., concur; Martuscello, J. P., dissents and votes to affirm the order upon the opinion of Mr. Justice Wager at Special Term.

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

In a proceeding pursuant to section 415.00 of the Penal Law to declare the forfeiture of a motor vehicle, the appeal is from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated November 24, 1976, which, after a hearing, (1) denied petitioner’s application to declare a forfeiture of the vehicle and (2) directed the return of certain moneys to respondent. Order modified, on the facts, by deleting therefrom the provisions denying the application to declare a forfeiture of the vehicle. As so modified, order affirmed, without costs or disbursements. The petitioner established by a fair preponderance of the credible evidence that the vehicle in question was used in the transportation of gambling records. Latham, Margett and O’Connor, JJ., concur; Martuscello, J. P., dissents and votes to affirm the order upon the opinion of Mr. Justice Wager at Special Term.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

58 A.D.2d 602, 395 N.Y.S.2d 395, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12651, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dillon-v-cuomo-nyappdiv-1977.