Property Clerk of New York City Police Department v. Carter

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Property Clerk of New York City Police Department v. Carter

246 A.D.2d 400, 666 N.Y.S.2d 424, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 286

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided January 15, 1998·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Salvador Collazo, J.), entered July 18, 1996, which granted defendant’s motion for the release of an automobile seized in a civil forfeiture proceeding, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion denied.

The resolution of criminal charges does not preclude a civil forfeiture proceeding (Matter of Property Clerk of N. Y. City Police Dept. v Ferris, 77 NY2d 428; Property Clerk of N. Y. City Police Dept. v Conca, 148 AD2d 301, 302). Furthermore, the record establishes, prima facie, defendant’s violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 511 (3) (a) (ii), the predicate for seizure and forfeiture under Vehicle and Traffic Law § 511-c.

We find no basis to grant the motion in the interests of justice. Defendant’s further arguments, that civil forfeiture constitutes a form of cruel and unusual punishment and violates the proscription against double jeopardy, are unpreserved and without merit. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Ellerin, Tom, Andrias and Colabella, JJ.

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

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Salvador Collazo, J.), entered July 18, 1996, which granted defendant’s motion for the release of an automobile seized in a civil forfeiture proceeding, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion denied.

The resolution of criminal charges does not preclude a civil forfeiture proceeding (Matter of Property Clerk of N. Y. City Police Dept. v Ferris, 77 NY2d 428; Property Clerk of N. Y. City Police Dept. v Conca, 148 AD2d 301, 302). Furthermore, the record establishes, prima facie, defendant’s violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 511 (3) (a) (ii), the predicate for seizure and forfeiture under Vehicle and Traffic Law § 511-c.

We find no basis to grant the motion in the interests of justice. Defendant’s further arguments, that civil forfeiture constitutes a form of cruel and unusual punishment and violates the proscription against double jeopardy, are unpreserved and without merit. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Ellerin, Tom, Andrias and Colabella, JJ.

Property Clerk of New York City Police Department v. Carter, 246 A.D.2d 400, 666 N.Y.S.2d 424, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 286 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

246 A.D.2d 400 (Property Clerk of New York City Police Department v. Carter) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related