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
Party Moving for a Change of Venue Must Demonstrate the Change Will Better Serve the Convenience of Material Witnesses
PLAINTIFF, A FLORIDA RESIDENT, ALLEGEDLY WAS ABUSED BY A PRIEST IN FLORIDA IN 1983 AND 1984; PLAINTIFF SUED THE DIOCESE OF BROOKLYN BECAUSE THE PRIEST WHO ALLEGEDLY ABUSED HIM WAS TRANSFERRED FROM BROOKLYN TO FLORIDA, ALLEGEDLY BECAUSE OF SEXUAL MISCONDUCT WITH CHILDREN; THE CHILD VICTIMS ACT DOES NOT APPLY TO THE NONRESIDENT PLAINTIFF AND THE BORROWING STATUTE DOES APPLY; THEREFORE FLORIDA’S FOUR-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS RENDERED PLAINTIFF’S ACTION TIME-BARRED (SECOND DEPT). ​
PEOPLE’S APPLICATION FOR AN UPWARD DEPARTURE NOT SUPPORTED BY CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE; EVIDENCE DEFENDANT WAS CHARGED BUT NEVER INDICTED OR CONVICTED DOES NOT MEET THE CLEAR AND CONVINCING STANDARD (SECOND DEPT).
RES JUDICATA PRECLUDED CLAIMS WHICH COULD HAVE BEEN RAISED IN A PRIOR PROCEEDING (SECOND DEPT).
SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE MODIFIED THE PARENTAL ACCESS PROVISIONS OF THE JUDGMENT OF DIVORCE WITHOUT HOLDING A HEARING (SECOND DEPT).
ONCE PLAINTIFF RELEASED THE MORTGAGE UPON PAYMENT OF LESS THAN THE VALUE OF THE NOTE, PLAINTIFF COULD PROCEED AGAINST THE NOTE AND GUARANTY BY AMENDING THE FORECLOSURE COMPLAINT.
Failure to Plead Res Ipsa Loquitur Does Not Preclude Application of Theory.
ALTHOUGH FATHER’S GIRLFRIEND HAD ONLY SEEN THE ABUSED CHILD TWO OR THREE TIMES SHE WAS DEEMED A PERSON LEGALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CHILD; THERE WAS A STRONG DISSENT (SECOND 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

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...