Login
  • Bookmark
  • PDF
  • Share
  • CaseIQ

PROPERTY CLERK OF N.Y. CITY v. DIOUF

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department.
Jul 2, 1992
Important Paras
Please sign up to view Important Paras.

Because forfeiture is a civil proceeding, the Property Clerk need only prove by a preponderance of the evidence that seized property is subject to forfeiture (Matter of Property Clerk of N Y City Police Dept. v. Ferris, 77 N.Y.2d 428, 430). And, because of the differing degree of proof, the outcome of an underlying criminal action — even if terminated by a dismissal or acquittal — is irrelevant to the outcome of a civil forfeiture proceeding (supra; see also, Property Clerk of N.Y. City Police Dept. v Lanzetta, 157 A.D.2d 600, 601).

Here, although issues of fact are presented regarding whether the $1,349.83, including $1,200 in counterfeit currency, defendant allegedly brought here from Senegal, was obtained through legitimate business enterprises, plaintiff's speculative contention that counterfeit money was used to obtain the additional $16,610.17 for which defendant produced a foreign exchange receipt from a reputable concern is insufficient to defeat summary judgment as to those additional monies seized from defendant and held by the Property Clerk.

Concur — Carro, J.P., Ellerin, Kupferman and Asch, JJ.