FORD MOTOR CREDIT COMPANY, AAPPELLANT, v. MICHAEL MOLOMO, DEFENDANT, AND
INSPECTOR ANDREW FURLONG AS THE NEW YORK CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT PROPERTY
CLERK, RESPONDENT.
81 N.Y.2d 936, 613 N.E.2d 567, 597 N.Y.S.2d 661 (1993).
April 8, 1993
1 No. 71 (1993 N.Y. Int. 82)
Decided April 8, 1993
_________________________________________________________________
This memorandum is uncorrected and subject to revision before
publication in the New York Reports.
Jerold R. Ruderman, for Appellant.
Elizabeth S. Natrella, for Respondent.
_________________________________________________________________
MEMORANDUM:
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 F2d 698). Moreover, it is settled law that a claim of
innocence will not defeat forfeiture (Calero-Toledo v Pearson Yacht
Leasing Co., 416 US 663, 683; United States v One 1957 Rockwell Aero
Commander, 671 F2d 414, 417; United States v One 1969 Plymouth Fury
Automobile, 476 F2d 960; City of New York v Salamon, 161 AD2d 470;
Frank Santora Equipment Corp. v City of New York, 138 Misc 2d 631). In
any event, Ford had no present possessory right in the vehicle, and
its remedy, as the Appellate Division held (179 AD2d 210), 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.
SNIPPETS:
INSPECTOR ANDREW FURLONG AS THE NEW YORK CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT PROPERTY CLERK, RESPONDENT.
This memorandum is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the New York
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
the car was subjected to forfeiture under section 14-140 of the Administrative Code of the
In these combined forfeiture and replevin actions, Ford's principal contention is that the
Moreover, it is settled law that a claim of innocence will not defeat forfeiture
In any event, Ford had no present possessory right in the vehicle, and its remedy, as the
Ford will fully protect its interest in the property and incur no loss.
Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Simons, Titone, Hancock and Bellacosa concur.
Judge Smith took no part.
|
