Property Clerk of New York City Police Dept. v. Molomo
| Decision Date | 08 April 1993 |
| Parties | , 613 N.E.2d 567 PROPERTY CLERK OF NEW YORK CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT, Petitioner, v. Michael MOLOMO, Respondent. FORD MOTOR CREDIT COMPANY, Appellant, v. Michael MOLOMO, Defendant, and Andrew Furlong, as New York City Police Department Property Clerk, Respondent. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker, White Plains (Jerold R. Ruderman and Bryon L. Friedman, of counsel), for appellant.
O. Peter Sherwood, Corp. Counsel of New York City (Elizabeth S. Natrella and Pamela Seider Dolgow, of counsel), for respondent.
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.
Ford Motor Credit Company was the lienholder on a vehicle used in a drug purchase by the debtor Molomo. As an instrumentality of crime, the car was subjected to forfeiture under section 14-140 of the Administrative Code of the City of New York. In these combined forfeiture and replevin actions, Ford's principal contention is that the City's forfeiture procedure is constitutionally infirm because it does not require notice to a lienholder, nor does it grant "wholly innocent" lienholders a right to possession of the seized vehicle.
Neither contention has merit. Ford received actual notice of the City's seizure of the vehicle and has fully participated in legal proceedings pertaining to the vehicle's disposition (cf., Butler v. Castro, 896 F.2d 698). Moreover, it is settled law that a claim of innocence will not defeat forfeiture (Calero-Toledo v. Pearson Yacht Leasing Co., 416 U.S. 663, 683, 94 S.Ct. 2080, 2091-92, 40 L.Ed.2d 452; United States v. One 1957 Rockwell 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 possessory right in the vehicle, and its remedy, as the Appellate Division held (179 A.D.2d 210, 583 N.Y.S.2d 251), is to receive the proceeds from the City's forfeiture sale and to seek any deficiency against the debtor. By doing so, Ford will fully protect its interest in the property and incur no loss.
SMITH, J., taking no part.
Order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ford Motor Credit Co. v. New York City Police
...702 N.Y.S.2d 792 (S.Ct.N.Y.Co.2000); Alexandre v. Cortes, 140 F.3d 406 (2d Cir.1998); Property 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......
-
Ford Motor Credit Co. v. Nyc Police Dept.
...sure, by any deficiency judgment Ford Motor Credit may obtain against the vehicle's owner). See, e.g., Prop. Clerk v. Molomo, 81 N.Y.2d 936, 597 N.Y.S.2d 661, 613 N.E.2d 567, 567 (1993) ("Ford ha[s] no present possessory right in the vehicle, and its remedy . . . is to receive the proceeds ......
-
Prop. Clerk, N.Y.C. Police Dep't v. Leon
...that unlike Iliana, NMAC, the innocent lienholder, does not have a present possessory right to the Nissan (Property Clerk of New York City Police Dept v. Molomo, 81 N.Y.2d 936 [1993] ). Rather, it has a “contingent possessory interest in a seized vehicle ...” (Harris, 9 NY3d at 246), a cons......
-
Brown v. A 2007 Chevrolet
...the debtor ( City of New York v. Salamon, 161 A.D.2d 470, 471, 555 N.Y.S.2d 380 ; see Property Clerk of N.Y. City Police Dept. v. Molomo, 81 N.Y.2d 936, 597 N.Y.S.2d 661, 613 N.E.2d 567 ). Thus, JPMorgan failed to establish its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, and the......