We agree with the IAS Court that the municipal defendants are liable for the full amount of the sale proceeds. It being undisputed that plaintiff, as a secured creditor, had a superior interest in the subject vehicle to municipal defendants, whose judgment lien arose out of unpaid parking violations, plaintiff was entitled to the satisfaction of its lien prior to municipal defendants' satisfaction of its judgment, and the sale of the vehicle by municipal defendants was improper (see, Ford Motor Credit Co. v. Shapiro, 26 UCC Rep Serv 1317, 1979 WL 30082; Ford Motor Co. v. City of New York, 114 UCC Rep Serv 211, 1974 WL 21734). We reject the municipal defendants' argument that at worst they should be held liable only for those portions of the proceeds they used to satisfy their judgment, but not for those portions they incorrectly returned to the judgment debtor (see, Bank of Danville v. Farmers Natl. Bank, 602 S.W.2d 160 [Sup Ct Ky]; but see, Chadron Energy Corp. v. First Natl. Bank, 459 N.W.2d 718 [Sup Ct Neb]). We have considered defendants' other arguments and find them to be unavailing.
Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Nardelli, Tom and Andrias, JJ.