Property Clerk of New York City Police Department v. Fanning

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Property Clerk of New York City Police Department v. Fanning

162 A.D.2d 282, 556 N.Y.S.2d 874, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7430

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

DecidedJune 21, 1990

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 162 A.D.2d 282 (Property Clerk of New York City Police Department v. Fanning) 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. Fanning, 162 A.D.2d 282, 556 N.Y.S.2d 874, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7430 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Irma Vidal Santaella, J.), entered February 9, 1989, which granted a petition seeking, [283]*283inter alia, forfeiture of respondent’s automobile, upon making a finding that petitioner’s seizure and continued possession of the subject automobile, which had been used in a drug transaction, was lawful and proper, is unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The affidavit of arresting officer John Pszczola, which was submitted in support of the petition, established that he stopped respondent’s vehicle after he had received information from a fellow undercover officer that he had just purchased cocaine from two individuals seated in respondent’s car. Pszczola’s affidavit also included statements as to his personal observations relating to defendant’s transportation of narcotics, by car, away from the point of sale, and the fact that he recovered from respondent and the other passengers cocaine, prerecorded "buy” money and drug paraphernalia. These evidentiary facts, as set forth in Pszczola’s affidavit, establish by a preponderance of the evidence that respondent’s vehicle was used in furtherance of a crime (see, Administrative Code of City of New York § 14-140 [e] [1]; Property Clerk of N. Y. City Police Dept. v Hurlston, 104 AD2d 312, 313). Grounds for forfeiture of the vehicle were thereby sufficiently established.

Defendant’s unverified answer, prepared by his attorney and founded "upon information and belief’, was insufficient to controvert petitioner’s evidence (see, CPLR 3020), and therefore defendant did not sustain his burden of presenting evidentiary facts sufficient to show that the seizure and possession of his vehicle was unlawful and improper (see, Property Clerk of N. Y. City Police Dept. v Hurlston, 104 AD2d, supra, at 313). Concur—Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Carro, Milonas and Smith, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Irma Vidal Santaella, J.), entered February 9, 1989, which granted a petition seeking, [283]*283inter alia, forfeiture of respondent’s automobile, upon making a finding that petitioner’s seizure and continued possession of the subject automobile, which had been used in a drug transaction, was lawful and proper, is unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The affidavit of arresting officer John Pszczola, which was submitted in support of the petition, established that he stopped respondent’s vehicle after he had received information from a fellow undercover officer that he had just purchased cocaine from two individuals seated in respondent’s car. Pszczola’s affidavit also included statements as to his personal observations relating to defendant’s transportation of narcotics, by car, away from the point of sale, and the fact that he recovered from respondent and the other passengers cocaine, prerecorded "buy” money and drug paraphernalia. These evidentiary facts, as set forth in Pszczola’s affidavit, establish by a preponderance of the evidence that respondent’s vehicle was used in furtherance of a crime (see, Administrative Code of City of New York § 14-140 [e] [1]; Property Clerk of N. Y. City Police Dept. v Hurlston, 104 AD2d 312, 313). Grounds for forfeiture of the vehicle were thereby sufficiently established.

Defendant’s unverified answer, prepared by his attorney and founded "upon information and belief’, was insufficient to controvert petitioner’s evidence (see, CPLR 3020), and therefore defendant did not sustain his burden of presenting evidentiary facts sufficient to show that the seizure and possession of his vehicle was unlawful and improper (see, Property Clerk of N. Y. City Police Dept. v Hurlston, 104 AD2d, supra, at 313). Concur—Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Carro, Milonas and Smith, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

162 A.D.2d 282, 556 N.Y.S.2d 874, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7430, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/property-clerk-of-new-york-city-police-department-v-fanning-nyappdiv-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack