Posted on December 28, 2011 by Kevin Sheerin

Police Department Ordered to Release Vehicle When Notice Wasn't Properly Served

Police Department v. Matinez

 

          Petitioner, the Police Department, brought about this proceeding to determine its right to retain a vehicle seized as the alleged instrumentality of a crime pursuant to section 14-140 of the Administrative Code. 

          Respondent’s was operating the vehicle in question at the time of its seizure.  Respondent was arrested for operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol or drugs, reckless driving and resisting arrest, when Petitioner seized Respondent’s vehicle. 

          The Court found that the petitioner failed to prove that it had served respondent with notice as required by Krimstock Order, timely notice of respondent’s right to a retention hearing in person and by mail.  The vehicle was therefore ordered released. Police Dep’t v. Martinez (in PDF),

Tags: , , ,
Posted on September 5, 2008 by Kevin Sheerin

Vehicle owner gets car back with "innocent owner" defense after son pleads guilty to DWI

County of Nassau v. Gazzola

Defendant, Roberta Gazzola’s, son, Christopher, was arrested and charged with Driving While Impaired. He was driving his mother’s car without her permission at the time. According to Nassau County Administrative Code § 8-7.0(g)(4)(a), Christopher was given a “Vehicle Seizure Notice” at the time of his arrest. The County commenced this action seeking civil forfeiture of the vehicle against the Gazzolas and Daimler-Chrysler, the company Roberta purchased the vehicle from. Daimler-Chrysler then filed a cross-claim seeking to repossess the vehicle based on an “innocent lienholder” defense. The Gazzolas then cross-moved for dismissal, claiming to be an “innocent owner”.

 

The County, though able to establish that the car was used in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192, failed to establish that Ms. Gazzola gave Christopher permission to use her car, that she had any reason to believe that he would do so or that he would do so in an illegal fashion. The County recognizes that Daimler-Chrysler had a superior right to the vehicle but not over defendant since the circumstances that would have given Daimler-Chrysler the right the repossess the vehicle from Ms. Gazzola were not demonstrated here.

 

Accordingly, the Court dismissed the complaint and all cross-claims. Roberta Gazzola’s motion was granted and it was declared that neither the County nor Daimler-Chrysler had rights superior to her on her vehicle.

Tags: , , , ,