Opinion
June 13, 1988
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Coffinas, J.).
Ordered that the order is reversed, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is reinstated.
The court erroneously dismissed the instant action because the District Attorney had allegedly given the defendant a promise, in return for his plea of guilty to attempted robbery in the second degree, not to seek forfeiture of his automobile which was used by the defendant and an accomplice to flee after committing a robbery. Promises which are not placed on the record are not enforceable (see, People v Hood, 62 N.Y.2d 863). Moreover, since the forfeiture action is a collateral consequence of the defendant's guilty plea, there was no requirement that the defendant be informed that the District Attorney would attempt to gain possession of the automobile (see, CPLR 1311; People v Mitchell, 121 A.D.2d 403).
The court also erroneously held that the action could not be maintained because the defendant's due process rights had been violated. The safeguard procedures provided for in CPLR article 13-A satisfy minimal due process requirements (see, Morgenthau v Citisource, Inc., 68 N.Y.2d 211, 220-222, on remittitur 128 A.D.2d 459). Thompson, J.P., Brown, Weinstein and Rubin, JJ., concur.