Property Clerk of New York City Police Department v. Diouf

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Property Clerk of New York City Police Department v. Diouf

185 A.D.2d 151, 586 N.Y.S.2d 7, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8749

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

DecidedJuly 2, 1992

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 185 A.D.2d 151 (Property Clerk of New York City Police Department v. Diouf) 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

Property Clerk of New York City Police Department v. Diouf, 185 A.D.2d 151, 586 N.Y.S.2d 7, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8749 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Eugene L. Nardelli, J.), entered November 13, 1991, which, in a forfeiture proceeding pursuant to Administrative Code of the City of New York § 14-140, denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously modified, on the law, to the extent of granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as to any amount held by plaintiff in excess of $1,349.83 and directing plaintiff to return such amount in its possession to defendant immediately. As so modified, the order is otherwise affirmed, without costs. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.

Because forfeiture is a civil proceeding, the Property Clerk need only prove by a preponderance of the evidence that seized property is subject to forfeiture (Matter of Property Clerk of N. Y. City Police Dept. v Ferris, 77 NY2d 428, 430). And, because of the differing degree of proof, the outcome of an underlying criminal action—even if terminated by a dismissal or acquittal—is irrelevant to the outcome of a civil forfeiture proceeding (supra; see also, Property Clerk of N. Y. City Police Dept. v Lanzetta, 157 AD2d 600, 601).

Here, although issues of fact are presented regarding whether the $1,349.83, including $1,200 in counterfeit cur[152]*152rency, defendant allegedly brought here from Senegal, was obtained through legitimate business enterprises, plaintiffs speculative contention that counterfeit money was used to obtain the additional $16,610.17 for which defendant produced a foreign exchange receipt from a reputable concern is insufficient to defeat summary judgment as to those additional monies seized from defendant and held by the Property Clerk. Concur—Carro, J. P., Ellerin, Kupferman and Asch, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Eugene L. Nardelli, J.), entered November 13, 1991, which, in a forfeiture proceeding pursuant to Administrative Code of the City of New York § 14-140, denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously modified, on the law, to the extent of granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as to any amount held by plaintiff in excess of $1,349.83 and directing plaintiff to return such amount in its possession to defendant immediately. As so modified, the order is otherwise affirmed, without costs. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.

Because forfeiture is a civil proceeding, the Property Clerk need only prove by a preponderance of the evidence that seized property is subject to forfeiture (Matter of Property Clerk of N. Y. City Police Dept. v Ferris, 77 NY2d 428, 430). And, because of the differing degree of proof, the outcome of an underlying criminal action—even if terminated by a dismissal or acquittal—is irrelevant to the outcome of a civil forfeiture proceeding (supra; see also, Property Clerk of N. Y. City Police Dept. v Lanzetta, 157 AD2d 600, 601).

Here, although issues of fact are presented regarding whether the $1,349.83, including $1,200 in counterfeit cur[152]*152rency, defendant allegedly brought here from Senegal, was obtained through legitimate business enterprises, plaintiffs speculative contention that counterfeit money was used to obtain the additional $16,610.17 for which defendant produced a foreign exchange receipt from a reputable concern is insufficient to defeat summary judgment as to those additional monies seized from defendant and held by the Property Clerk. Concur—Carro, J. P., Ellerin, Kupferman and Asch, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

185 A.D.2d 151, 586 N.Y.S.2d 7, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8749, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/property-clerk-of-new-york-city-police-department-v-diouf-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack