You are here: / / Civil Forfeiture Should Not Have Been Made Part of Defendant’s Sentence...

Civil Forfeiture Should Not Have Been Made Part of Defendant’s Sentence In the Absence of Defendant’s Voluntary Agreement

The Second Department noted that civil forfeiture should not have been imposed as part defendant's criminal sentence in the absence of defendant's voluntary agreement:

In appropriate circumstances, the voluntary settlement of a potential civil forfeiture action pursuant to CPLR article 13-A (see CPLR 1311) may be made a lawful condition of a negotiated plea (see CPL 220.50[6]), and an order of forfeiture pursuant to a valid settlement of a civil forfeiture claim may be included as part of the judgment of conviction (see Penal Law § 60.30). Civil forfeiture, however, is not an authorized component of a criminal sentence.

Here, the plea minutes do not reflect that the defendant voluntarily agreed to the civil forfeiture of his mobile telephone and $900 cash as a condition of the plea … . Then, when the defendant refused to sign the forfeiture documents at the time of sentencing, the County Court improperly imposed civil forfeiture as a portion of the criminal sentence. Accordingly, under the particular circumstances of this case, as the defendant correctly contends, the portion of the sentence which imposed the civil forfeiture of the defendant's mobile telephone and $900 cash must be vacated … . People v Carmichael, 2014 NY Slip Op 09012, 2nd Dept 12-24-14

 

You might also like
Show-Up Identification Should Have Been Suppressed—Defendant Was Only Person In the Street, Was In Hand-Cuffs, and Was Surrounded by Police
Unrecorded Purchase Money Mortgage Did Not Have Priority Over Mortgage Recorded by Good-Faith Lender for Value
Reapplication for Visitation Can Not Be Conditioned on Counseling or Treatment
Allegations of Mutual Mistake in Counterclaim and Affirmative Defense Not Made With Requisite Particularity
Wife’s Stipulation Waiving Claim to Benefits Valid Even though Law Unclear at Time of Stipulation and Benefits Later Determined by Court of Appeals to Be Marital Property
Criteria for Motion to Amend a Complaint and for the “Relation Back” Doctrine Explained
LOANING PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT A CAR WITH A BROKEN FUEL GAUGE WAS NOT A PROXIMATE CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT’S DEATH; THE CAR RAN OUT OF GAS AND PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT PULLED OVER ONTO THE SHOULDER OF A TWO-LANE ROAD; SHE WAS STRUCK BY A HIT AND RUN DRIVER WHILE PUTTING GAS IN THE CAR WITH A GAS CAN (SECOND DEPT).
WHERE AN EMPLOYEE ACTS WITHIN THE SCOPE OF EMPLOYMENT, ABSENT A VALID CLAIM FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES, AN EMPLOYER CANNOT BE SUED FOR NEGLIGENT HIRING AND RETENTION.

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Although Not Raised by the Defendant Below, the Appellate Court Vacated the... T-Shirts With the Victim’s Photo Worn by Family Members During the Murder...