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
Supreme Court Abused Its Discretion by Vacating a Judgment Which Was Not Appealed by the Defendant
FAILURE TO TELL THE JURY TO STOP DELIBERATING IF THEY FIND THE JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE APPLIES REQUIRED REVERSAL, EVEN THOUGH THE JUDGE TOLD THE JURY TO ACQUIT ON ALL COUNTS IF THE JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE APPLIES (FIRST DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THIS NON-TORT ACTION AGAINST THE NYC DISTRICT ATTORNEY DID NOT TRIGGER THE NOTICE OF CLAIM REQUIREMENT OF THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW, IT DID TRIGGER THE NOTICE OF CLAIM REQUIREMENT OF THE COUNTY LAW (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF TESTIFIED SHE DID NOT KNOW WHAT CAUSED HER SLIP AND FALL BUT STATED IN HER AFFIDAVIT IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHE SLIPPED ON ICE; THE AFFIDAVIT CREATED A FEIGNED ISSUE OF FACT; DEFENDANT’S MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
VENUE WAS IMPROPER; DEFENDANTS FOLLOWED THE STATUTORY PROCEDURE AND MOVED FOR A CHANGE OF VENUE; NO OTHER PARTY MOVED FOR A CHANGE OF VENUE; THE MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
“Bad Faith Claims Handling” Cause of Action Properly Dismissed As Duplicative of Breach of Contract Cause of Action/Sanctions Appropriate for Inclusion of Dismissed Cause of Action in Amended Complaint
TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH BUSINESS RELATIONS CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY SURVIVED A MOTION TO DISMISS, LAW OF THE CASE DOCTRINE APPLIES ONLY TO COURTS OF COORDINATE JURISDICTION.
NO OBLIGATION TO CONTINUOUSLY MOP UP TRACKED IN WATER.

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...