Property Clerk of Police Department v. Robinson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Property Clerk of Police Department v. Robinson

57 A.D.3d 325, 868 N.Y.2d 208

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

DecidedDecember 16, 2008

StatusPublished

This text of 57 A.D.3d 325 (Property Clerk of Police Department v. Robinson) 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 Police Department v. Robinson, 57 A.D.3d 325, 868 N.Y.2d 208 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

[326]*326Given the evidence that Robinson had committed a drug-related offense from the vehicle, that he was seen entering and exiting a house in which 49 bags of crack cocaine were found, that his car was parked outside the house, and that a ziplock bag of crack cocaine was found upon search of the car, OATH’s determination that petitioners failed to demonstrate probable cause for Robinson’s arrest and a likelihood that they would succeed in the forfeiture proceeding was not supported by substantial evidence (see Krimstock v Kelly, 306 F3d 40 [2d Cir 2002], cert denied 539 US 969 [2003]). The absence of evidence as to whether Robinson had driven the car to the house or how long he had been out of the car are issues for the forfeiture hearing itself and are not necessary to the resolution of the Krimstock hearing (id. at 69-70). Concur — Andrias, J.P., Nardelli, Sweeny, DeGrasse and Freedman, JJ.

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

[326]*326Given the evidence that Robinson had committed a drug-related offense from the vehicle, that he was seen entering and exiting a house in which 49 bags of crack cocaine were found, that his car was parked outside the house, and that a ziplock bag of crack cocaine was found upon search of the car, OATH’s determination that petitioners failed to demonstrate probable cause for Robinson’s arrest and a likelihood that they would succeed in the forfeiture proceeding was not supported by substantial evidence (see Krimstock v Kelly, 306 F3d 40 [2d Cir 2002], cert denied 539 US 969 [2003]). The absence of evidence as to whether Robinson had driven the car to the house or how long he had been out of the car are issues for the forfeiture hearing itself and are not necessary to the resolution of the Krimstock hearing (id. at 69-70). Concur — Andrias, J.P., Nardelli, Sweeny, DeGrasse and Freedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

57 A.D.3d 325, 868 N.Y.2d 208, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/property-clerk-of-police-department-v-robinson-nyappdiv-2008.