City of New York v. Salamon
| Decision Date | 22 May 1990 |
| Citation | 161 A.D.2d 470,555 N.Y.S.2d 380 |
| Parties | The CITY OF NEW YORK, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Bernard SALAMON, etc., Defendant-Respondent, and Ford Motor Credit Company, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
E.S. Natrella, New York City, for plaintiff-respondent.
G.P. Berger, for defendant-appellant.
Before KUPFERMAN, J.P., and SULLIVAN, ROSENBERGER, ELLERIN and SMITH, JJ.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York City (Edward H. Lehner, J.), entered on or about March 13, 1989, which, inter alia, granted the City's motion for a default judgment as against defendant Bernard Salamon for forfeiture of certain property, including a 1986 Ford van, pursuant to New York City Administrative Code Sections 20-468 and 20-469, for vending without a proper license; denied the City's motion for forfeiture of the lien on the seized van held by defendant Ford Motor Credit Company, and which denied defendant Ford's cross-motion for immediate possession of the seized van, while directing an auction of the van subject to the lien held by defendant Ford, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Defendant Ford, as a lienholder on a seized Ford van, lacked standing to challenge the constitutionality of the notice provisions of the forfeiture statutes. (New York City Administrative Code Sections 20-468 and 20-469.) Furthermore, Ford failed to demonstrate that it had suffered any personal injury as a result of the City's failure to provide notice. Moreover, given the favorable resolution of the underlying proceeding in defendant's Ford's favor, there was no need for the IAS Court to address the alleged constitutional infirmity. (Golden v. Zwickler, 394 U.S. 103, 108, 89 S.Ct. 956, 959, 22 L.Ed.2d 113; Crowell v. Benson, 285 U.S. 22, 52 S.Ct. 285, 76 L.Ed. 598; New York Public Interest Research Group v. Carey, 42 N.Y.2d 527, 529, 399 N.Y.S.2d 621, 369 N.E.2d 1155.)
Moreover, although defendant Ford, having done all it reasonably could to prevent the illegal use by defendant Bernard Salamon of the vehicle in question for unlicensed vending, was innocent of wrongdoing, that did not entitle defendant Ford to immediate possession of the vehicle, but rather merely entitled it to satisfy its lien from the proceeds of the property after the forefeiture had been adjudicated against the guilty party. (Calero-Toledo v. Pearson Yacht Leasing Co., 416 U.S. 663, 94 S.Ct. 2080, 40 L.Ed.2d 452; Frank Santora Equipment Corp. v....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ford Motor Credit Co. v. New York City Police
...Clerk of New York City Police Dep't v. Molomo, 81 N.Y.2d 936, 597 N.Y.S.2d 661, 613 N.E.2d 567 (1993); City of New York v. Salamon, 161 A.D.2d 470, 555 N.Y.S.2d 380 (1st Dep't 1990); Frank Santora Equip. Corp. v. City of New York, 138 Misc.2d 631, 524 N.Y.S.2d 663 (S.Ct.N.Y.Co.1988); McClen......
-
Property Clerk, New York City Police Dept. v. Molomo
...for any deficiency. Nevertheless, I am unable to see how this case can be distinguished from our decision in City of New York v. Salamon, 161 A.D.2d 470, 555 N.Y.S.2d 380, which unanimously held that although the same party, Ford Motor Credit Company, had done all it reasonably could to pre......
-
Property Clerk of New York City Police Dept. v. Molomo
...Aero Commander 680 Aircraft, 671 F.2d 414, 417; United States v. One 1969 Plymouth Fury Auto., 476 F.2d 960; City of New York v. Salamon, 161 A.D.2d 470, 555 N.Y.S.2d 380; Santora Equip. Corp. v. City of New York, 138 Misc.2d 631, 524 N.Y.S.2d 663). In any event, Ford had no present possess......
-
People v. Rodriguez
...555 N.Y.S.2d 379 ... 161 A.D.2d 469 ... The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, ... Abraham RODRIGUEZ, Defendant-Appellant ... Supreme Court, Appellate Division, ... First Department ... May 22, 1990 ... T.L. Chiofolo, New York City, for respondent ... L.M. Goodman, for defendant-appellant ... ...