PROPERTY CLERK OF NEW YORK CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT v. Foley

• Decision Date: 05 April 2001
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
• Parties: PROPERTY CLERK OF NEW YORK CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT, Respondent,<BR>v.<BR>PATRICK N. FOLEY, Respondent, and FORD MOTOR CREDIT COMPANY, Proposed Intervenor-Appellant.<BR>PROPERTY CLERK OF NEW YORK CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT, Respondent,<BR>v.<BR>ARGENTINA R. POQUERO, Also Known as ARGENTINA ROSARIO-PEQUERO, et al., Respondents, and MITSUBISHI MOTORS CREDIT OF AMERICA, INC., Proposed Intervenor-Appellant.<BR>PROPERTY CLERK OF NEW YORK CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT, Respondent,<BR>v.<BR>JOSE NUNEZ, Respondent, and MITSUBISHI MOTORS CREDIT OF AMERICA, INC., Proposed Intervenor-Appellant.<BR>PROPERTY CLERK OF NEW YORK CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT, Respondent,<BR>v.<BR>KIM CHUL HYUNG, Respondent, and CHRYSLER FINANCIAL COMPANY, L. L. C., Proposed Intervenor-Appellant.

282 A.D.2d 221

724 N.Y.S.2d 580

PROPERTY CLERK OF NEW YORK CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT, Respondent,

v.PATRICK N. FOLEY, Respondent, and FORD MOTOR CREDIT COMPANY, Proposed Intervenor-Appellant.

PROPERTY CLERK OF NEW YORK CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT, Respondent,

v.ARGENTINA R. POQUERO, Also Known as ARGENTINA ROSARIO-PEQUERO, et al., Respondents, and MITSUBISHI MOTORS CREDIT OF AMERICA, INC., Proposed Intervenor-Appellant.

PROPERTY CLERK OF NEW YORK CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT, Respondent,

v.JOSE NUNEZ, Respondent, and MITSUBISHI MOTORS CREDIT OF AMERICA, INC., Proposed Intervenor-Appellant.

PROPERTY CLERK OF NEW YORK CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT, Respondent,

v.KIM CHUL HYUNG, Respondent, and CHRYSLER FINANCIAL COMPANY, L. L. C., Proposed Intervenor-Appellant.

Decided April 5, 2001.

Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Andrias, Wallach, Rubin and Buckley, JJ.

Appellants' security interests in the subject vehicles will not be adversely affected by any judgments to be entered in these actions, and, given the likely delay that would attend consideration of appellants' rights against defendant vehicle owners, we perceive no useful advantages to be gained by appellants' intervention (see, CPLR 1012 [a] [3]; 1013). Appellants have no present possessory right in the vehicles (Property Clerk of N. Y. City Police Dept. v Molomo, 81 NY2d 936). Their remedy, in the event of forfeiture, is to receive the proceeds from the City's forfeiture sale and to seek any deficiency from defendant vehicle owners (id.), and, in the event of nonforfeiture, to sue defendants for return of the vehicles or for such other relief as might be provided in their contracts with defendants. The notices of the actions that appellants were given enable them to monitor the progress of the actions, such that, upon resolution of the actions, appellants can take whatever steps they deem necessary to protect or enforce their security interest.