Property Clerk of New York City Police Department v. Krasnik

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Property Clerk of New York City Police Department v. Krasnik

41 A.D.3d 245, 836 N.Y.S.2d 873

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

DecidedJune 19, 2007

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 41 A.D.3d 245 (Property Clerk of New York City Police Department v. Krasnik) 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. Krasnik, 41 A.D.3d 245, 836 N.Y.S.2d 873 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Martin Shulman, J.), entered July 21, 2006, which granted plaintiffs motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that defendant pleaded guilty to driving while intoxicated, and that he was driving the vehicle that is the subject of this forfeiture proceeding at the time he committed the crime. Defendant’s conviction is conclusive proof of the underlying facts. Even if he had sought to dispute his conviction or the underlying facts on this appeal, he would be collaterally estopped from relitigating those facts herein (see Grayes v DiStasio, 166 AD2d 261 [1990]). Concur—Marlow, J.P., Williams, Gonzalez, Catterson and McGuire, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Martin Shulman, J.), entered July 21, 2006, which granted plaintiffs motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that defendant pleaded guilty to driving while intoxicated, and that he was driving the vehicle that is the subject of this forfeiture proceeding at the time he committed the crime. Defendant’s conviction is conclusive proof of the underlying facts. Even if he had sought to dispute his conviction or the underlying facts on this appeal, he would be collaterally estopped from relitigating those facts herein (see Grayes v DiStasio, 166 AD2d 261 [1990]). Concur—Marlow, J.P., Williams, Gonzalez, Catterson and McGuire, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

41 A.D.3d 245, 836 N.Y.S.2d 873, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/property-clerk-of-new-york-city-police-department-v-krasnik-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack