Property Clerk, New York City Police Dept. v. Famiglietti
| Decision Date | 19 April 1990 |
| Citation | 160 A.D.2d 542,554 N.Y.S.2d 519 |
| Parties | PROPERTY CLERK, NEW YORK CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Antonia FAMIGLIETTI, Respondent-Respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
L.H. Young, New York City, for petitioner-appellant.
S.L. Ferris, for respondent-respondent.
Before SULLIVAN, J.P., and CARRO, ROSENBERGER, ELLERIN and RUBIN, JJ.
Order (denominated a judgment), Supreme Court, New York County (Diane A. Lebedeff, J.), entered January 11, 1989, denying and dismissing the Property Clerk's petition seeking a declaration of forfeiture of respondent's motor vehicle, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, the petition reinstated and the matter remanded for further proceedings.
Respondent and her brother were arrested after an undercover officer observed the two, occupying a 1988 Chevrolet Cavalier driven by respondent, in a drug-prone location. After purchasing a quantity of crack, respondent's brother returned to the car. Four vials of crack were recovered from the brother; no crack was found on respondent or in the car. Respondent was charged with loitering in the first degree. The case was adjourned in contemplation of dismissal (ACD) and the charge ultimately dismissed. Although the District Attorney furnished respondent with a property release, the Property Clerk refused to release the car and timely commenced this proceeding for a declaration of forfeiture. Finding that CPL 170.55(6), which, in relevant part, provides, "No person shall suffer any disability or forfeiture as a result of [an adjournment in contemplation of dismissal]," constitutes a clear prohibition against forfeiture, the IAS court dismissed the petition. We reverse.
New York City Administrative Code sec. 14-140(e)(1) provides for the civil forfeiture of property which is, inter alia, "employed in aid or in furtherance of crime." Courts have traditionally held that the disposition of a criminal charge is not determinative of the issues to be resolved in a forfeiture proceeding. (See, e.g., Property Clerk v. Conca, 148 A.D.2d 301, 302, 538 N.Y.S.2d 268; Matter of Property Clerk v. Batista, 111 A.D.2d 135, 136, 489 N.Y.S.2d 739.) In holding that CPL 170.55(6) overrides this authority and the Administrative Code's forfeiture provisions, the IAS court misconstrued the language of CPL 170.55(6), which makes clear that the forfeiture reference encompasses only automatic...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pleickhardt v. Lippman
...social opprobrium which may naturally result from the subject's misdeeds (see Property Clerk of the New York City Police Department v. Famiglietti, 160 A.D.2d 542, 554 N.Y.S.2d 519 [1st Dept., 1990]; Preiser, Practice Commentaries, McKinney's Cons.Laws of N.Y., CPL Sec. 170.55, Book 11A, p.......
-
Paris v. Anthony Ave. Realty Corp.
... ... A.A. Nicholson, New York City, for petitioner-appellant ... to the preservation of the subject property. (Cf. In re Estate of Barabash, 31 N.Y.2d 76, ... ...