Summary
In Molomo, The First Department emphasized that a lienholder is not an owner of a vehicle: "[n]or should Ford's status as a lienholder, not an owner, be glossed over."
Summary of this case from Property Clerk, NY City Police Dept. v. AquinoOpinion
Argued February 18, 1993
Decided April 8, 1993
Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department, Beatrice Shainswit, J.
Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman Dicker, White Plains (Jerold R. Ruderman and Bryon L. Friedman of counsel), for appellant.
O. Peter Sherwood, Corporation Counsel of New York City (Elizabeth S. Natrella and Pamela Seider Dolgow of counsel), 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 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; 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; Santora Equip. 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 A.D.2d 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.
Chief Judge KAYE and Judges SIMONS, TITONE, HANCOCK, JR., and BELLACOSA concur; Judge SMITH taking no part.
Order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.