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
Failure to Set Forth Manner and Timing of Restitution Required Remittance
FAILURE TO PAY TAXES UNDER PROTEST PRECLUDES AN ACTION TO RECOVER THE PAYMENTS WHEN THE RELEVANT TAX RULE IS INVALIDATED (SECOND DEPT).
Statute of Frauds Precluded Recovery for Both Contract and Quantum Meruit Causes of Action
“Aid of the Court No Longer Required” in Neglect Proceeding
PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE STANDING TO FORECLOSE; THE NOTE WAS NOT PROPERLY ENDORSED (SECOND DEPT).
THE COVID EXECUTIVE ORDERS TOLLING THE STATUTES OF LIMITATIONS APPLY TO THE TIME FOR ANSWERING A MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN LIEU OF COMPLAINT (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF’S AFFIDAVIT DID NOT STATE IT WAS BASED ON FIRST-HAND KNOWLEDGE AND THE UNCERTIFIED POLICE REPORT WAS INADMISSIBLE; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS PROPERTY-DAMAGE CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
LABOR LAW CLAIMS PROPERLY DISMISSED, DEFENDANT WAS NOT AN AGENT OF THE OWNER OR CONTRACTOR, DID NOT CONTROL THE MANNER OF WORK, DID NOT CREATE THE DANGEROUS CONDITION, AND DID NOT HAVE NOTICE OF THE DANGEROUS CONDITION.

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 © 2026 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...