Property Clerk of the New York City Police Department v. Ber

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Property Clerk of the New York City Police Department v. Ber

49 A.D.3d 430, 854 N.Y.2d 376

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

DecidedMarch 20, 2008

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 49 A.D.3d 430 (Property Clerk of the New York City Police Department v. Ber) 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 the New York City Police Department v. Ber, 49 A.D.3d 430, 854 N.Y.2d 376 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

[431]*431Defendant’s argument that plaintiff is selectively enforcing the civil forfeiture statute against luxury vehicles in violation of equal protection is pure speculation that does not warrant disclosure or a hearing. We also reject defendant’s argument that forfeiture of a 2002 BMW worth $20,000 to $27,000 for a crime that has a maximum fine of $1,000 is an unconstitutionally excessive penalty. “Given the gravity of the crime of drunk driving, it is difficult to imagine that forfeiture of an automobile for such a crime could ever be excessive” (County of Nassau v Canavan, 1 NY3d 134, 140 [2003]), certainly not here given defendant’s plea of guilty to driving while impaired (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192 [1]) less than three years before his arrest in connection with the instant matter. Concur—Tom, J.P., Friedman, Nardelli, Catterson and Moskowitz, JJ.

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

[431]*431Defendant’s argument that plaintiff is selectively enforcing the civil forfeiture statute against luxury vehicles in violation of equal protection is pure speculation that does not warrant disclosure or a hearing. We also reject defendant’s argument that forfeiture of a 2002 BMW worth $20,000 to $27,000 for a crime that has a maximum fine of $1,000 is an unconstitutionally excessive penalty. “Given the gravity of the crime of drunk driving, it is difficult to imagine that forfeiture of an automobile for such a crime could ever be excessive” (County of Nassau v Canavan, 1 NY3d 134, 140 [2003]), certainly not here given defendant’s plea of guilty to driving while impaired (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192 [1]) less than three years before his arrest in connection with the instant matter. Concur—Tom, J.P., Friedman, Nardelli, Catterson and Moskowitz, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

49 A.D.3d 430, 854 N.Y.2d 376, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/property-clerk-of-the-new-york-city-police-department-v-ber-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack