Opinion
May 22, 1990
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Edward H. Lehner, J.).
Defendant Ford, as a lienholder on a seized Ford van, lacked standing to challenge the constitutionality of the notice provisions of the forfeiture statutes. (Administrative Code of City of New York §§ 20-468, 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; Crowell v. Benson, 285 U.S. 22; New York Pub. Interest Research Group v. Carey, 42 N.Y.2d 527, 529.)
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; Santora Equip. Corp. v. City of New York, 138 Misc.2d 631; Matter of Dillon v. Reese, 93 Misc.2d 464.)
Thus, based upon the foregoing, the IAS court did not abuse its discretion in determining that the city was entitled to proceed with an auction of the seized van under the forfeiture statute, with the sale subject to the lien held by defendant Ford.
Concur — Kupferman, J.P., Sullivan, Rosenberger, Ellerin and Smith, JJ.