You are here: / / THERE ARE QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER THE FORFEITURE OF THE VEHICLE USED...
, ,

THERE ARE QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER THE FORFEITURE OF THE VEHICLE USED FOR FOOD VENDING WITHOUT A LICENSE IS “PUNITIVE” IN NATURE AND VIOLATES THE “EXCESSIVE FINES” CLAUSES OF THE NEW YORK STATE AND UNITED STATES CONSTITUTIONS; THE FINES IMPOSED FOR THE FOOD VENDING VIOLATION WERE $2600 AND THE VALUE OF THE VEHICLE IS $40,000 (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Gesmer, determined the forfeiture of Thomas Jones’ vehicle for food vending without a license violated the Excessive Fines clauses of both the State and Federal Constitutions. The vehicle was worth $40,000, and the fine imposed for vending without a license was $2600:

The City … commenced this proceeding in Supreme Court pursuant to Administrative Code of City of NY §§ 17-321(c) and 17-322 to seize and order forfeiture of Jones’ truck. Administrative Code § 17—321(a) permits both public health officials and the police to enforce food vending codes. Section 17-321(c)(iii) permits police or public health officials to seize a food vending vehicle being used by an unlicensed vendor and any food being offered for sale. If forfeiture proceedings are not commenced, the vendor may be charged with the “reasonable costs for removal and storage payable prior to the release of such food, vehicle or pushcart.” Section 17—322(a) provides for forfeiture of “all property seized” from unlicensed food vendors “[i]n addition to any penalties imposed” pursuant to Section 17-325. Section 17-325(a) provides that vending food without a license is a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of up to $1,000, imprisonment for up to three months, or both. Section 17-325(c) provides for additional fines for unlicensed food vendors.

The motion court denied the City’s motion for summary judgment on the grounds that there are questions of fact as to: (1) whether the forfeiture provision at issue is punitive in nature; and (2) whether the value of the property seized is so disproportional to the fines imposed and any harm to society that it violates the excessive fines clauses of the New York and United States Constitutions. We now affirm. City of New York v Jones, 2025 NY Slip Op 04842, First Dept 9-4-25

Practice Point: Consult this opinion for an in-depth discussion of when forfeiture is deemed “punitive” in nature such that forfeiture violates the Excessive Fines clauses of the State and Federal Constitutions.

 

You might also like
Aeration Tank Constituted an Unventilated Confined Area Requiring Air Quality Monitoring
VASTLY DIFFERENT ACCOUNTS OF THE INCIDENT PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT, SUPREME COURT REVERSED, EXTENSIVE DISSENT (FIRST DEPT).
THE NONPARTY OPERATOR OF AN ANONYMOUS WEBSITE WHICH POSTED ALLEGEDLY DEFAMATORY STATEMENTS ABOUT RESPONDENT BUSINESS WAS ENTITLED TO MAINTAIN HER ANONYMITY PURSUANT TO THE FIRST AMENDMENT; HER MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENAS AIMED AT REVEALING HER IDENTITY SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FISRT DEPT).
NO ONE OBJECTED TO THE VERDICT SHEET BEFORE THE VERDICT AND JUROR AFFIDAVITS ALLEGING CONFUSION ARE NOT TO BE CONSIDERED EXCEPT IN EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES NOT PRESENT HERE; THE MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
Parent Ordered to Pay Attorney’s Fees for Attorney Appointed to Represent the Children Has Standing to Raise Legal Malpractice Defense
WHEN A COURT DECIDES AN ACTION BROUGHT AS A SPECIAL PROCEEDING SHOULD HAVE BEEN BROUGHT AS A PLENARY ACTION, THE ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED BECAUSE IT WAS BROUGHT IN THE WRONG FORM; THE PETITION SOULD BE DEEMED A COMPLAINT, NOT A MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (FIRST DEPT).
Plaintiff’s Double-Parked Vehicle Furnished a Condition for the Accident But Was Not a Proximate Cause of the Acciden
THE GUARANTOR OF RENT DUE UNDER A LEASE FOR A BARBERSHOP FORCED TO CLOSE BY THE NYS GOVERNOR DURING COVID WAS RELIEVED OF LIABILITY FOR ONLY THE COVID-PERIOD COVERED BY NYC’S GUARANTY LAW (FIRST DEPT).

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

SUPREME COURT PROPERLY APPLIED THE “PIERCE THE CORPORATE VEIL CRITERIA”... HERE THE OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORD WAS NOT LIABLE FOR A SLIP AND FALL CAUSED...