Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Property Clerk of the Police Dep't of the City of New York v. Robinson

NEW YORK SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT


December 16, 2008

PROPERTY CLERK OF THE POLICE DEPARTMENT OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK, ET AL., PETITIONERS,
v.
JASON ROBINSON, ET AL., RESPONDENTS.

Determination of respondent New York City Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings (OATH), dated, April 20, 2007, which found that petitioners failed to establish their right to retain respondent Robinson's vehicle pending a civil forfeiture proceeding and ordered the vehicle released, unanimously annulled, on the law, without costs, and the petition in this proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, New York County [Martin Shulman, J.], entered on or about August 7, 2007), granted to that extent.

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Andrias, J.P., Nardelli, Sweeny, DeGrasse, Freedman, JJ.

404478/07

Given the evidence that Robinson had committed a drug-related offense from the vehicle, that he was seen entering and exiting a house in which 49 bags of crack cocaine were found, that his car was parked outside the house, and that a ziplock bag of crack cocaine was found upon search of the car, OATH's determination that petitioners failed to demonstrate probable cause for Robinson's arrest and a likelihood that they would succeed in the forfeiture proceeding was not supported by substantial evidence (see Krimstock v Kelly, 306 F3d 40 [2d Cir 2002] cert denied 539 US 969 [2003]). The absence of evidence as to whether Robinson had driven the car to the house or how long he had been out of the car are issues for the forfeiture hearing itself and are not necessary to the resolution of the Krimstock hearing (id. at 69-70).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

20081216

© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.