Dillon v. Woolnough

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Dillon v. Woolnough

203 A.D.2d 235, 609 N.Y.S.2d 657, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3193

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided April 4, 1994·Published

Opinion

In an action pursuant to CPLR article 13-A to declare a forfeiture of the proceeds of a crime, the defendant appeals from an order of the County Court, Nassau County (Winick, J.), dated August 9, 1989, which granted the plaintiff’s application for an order of attachment and a temporary restraining order. The notice of appeal from a decision dated July 27, 1989, is deemed a premature notice of appeal from the order dated August 9, 1989 (see, CPLR 5520 [c]).

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The hearing court properly found that there was a substantial probability that the plaintiff claiming authority would prevail on the issue of forfeiture, that without an order of attachment the assets seized from the defendant’s drug-filled apartment — namely, $6,747.30 in small bills — would probably be dissipated, and that the need to attach the assets outweighed any potential hardship to the defendant (see, CPLR 1312 [3]; 1311 [1] [a]; Morgenthau v Citisource, Inc., 68 NY2d 211; Kuriansky v Natural Mold Shoe Corp., 133 Misc 2d 489, amended on other grounds upon rearg 136 Misc 2d 684). Lawrence, J. P., Joy, Friedmann and Krausman, JJ., concur.

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

In an action pursuant to CPLR article 13-A to declare a forfeiture of the proceeds of a crime, the defendant appeals from an order of the County Court, Nassau County (Winick, J.), dated August 9, 1989, which granted the plaintiff’s application for an order of attachment and a temporary restraining order. The notice of appeal from a decision dated July 27, 1989, is deemed a premature notice of appeal from the order dated August 9, 1989 (see, CPLR 5520 [c]).

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The hearing court properly found that there was a substantial probability that the plaintiff claiming authority would prevail on the issue of forfeiture, that without an order of attachment the assets seized from the defendant’s drug-filled apartment — namely, $6,747.30 in small bills — would probably be dissipated, and that the need to attach the assets outweighed any potential hardship to the defendant (see, CPLR 1312 [3]; 1311 [1] [a]; Morgenthau v Citisource, Inc., 68 NY2d 211; Kuriansky v Natural Mold Shoe Corp., 133 Misc 2d 489, amended on other grounds upon rearg 136 Misc 2d 684). Lawrence, J. P., Joy, Friedmann and Krausman, JJ., concur.

Dillon v. Woolnough, 203 A.D.2d 235, 609 N.Y.S.2d 657, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3193 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

203 A.D.2d 235 (Dillon v. Woolnough) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related