People v. Lee

179 A.D.2d 829
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided January 27, 1992·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

[830]*830When a cash bond has been posted, there is a presumption that the moneys deposited in the defendant’s behalf are the defendant’s property (see, People v Castro, 119 Misc 2d 787, 795; Standard Elec. Equip. Corp. v Laszkowski, 305 NY 58, 61). Thus, until the criminal proceeding was terminated, the defendant was the owner of the funds put up as bail, and, when he absconded, the court properly directed the forfeiture of the bail. The remission of forfeiture is governed by a one-year Statute of Limitations (see, CPL 540.30 [2]), and the appellant’s application, made by notice of motion dated March 28, 1990, was untimely, since the forfeiture occurred on March 21, 1989, when the defendant failed to appear on his scheduled court date (see, CPL 540.10 [1]). Thompson, J. P., Sullivan, Harwood, Miller and O’Brien, JJ., concur.

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

People v. Lee, 179 A.D.2d 829 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

179 A.D.2d 829 (People v. Lee) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

People v. Nicholas
280 A.D.2d 944 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)
International Fidelity Insurance v. People
240 A.D.2d 494 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)