Moreno v. City of New York, 69 N.Y.2d 435 (1987)
A property owner’s common-law right to demand the return of seized property, or its value in a replevin action, is not extinguished by a city administrative code provision that allows the property clerk to transfer unclaimed money to another fund after a statutory period.
Summary
Mayra Moreno was arrested, and money was seized by New York City police. After the criminal charges were dismissed, she assigned her rights to her attorney, who then demanded the money’s return more than 90 days after the dismissal. The City refused, claiming the demand was untimely under the Administrative Code and the *McClendon v. Rosetti* ruling, asserting the funds were abandoned. Moreno then commenced a replevin action. The New York Court of Appeals held that the City’s administrative code provision merely fixed the point at which the property clerk could transfer funds, not extinguish the owner’s common-law right to demand the property’s return via a replevin action.
Facts
On December 15, 1982, Mayra Moreno was arrested in New York City on gambling charges, and $156,150 was seized by the police.
The seized money was delivered to the New York City Police Department property clerk.
On March 8, 1983, Moreno served a notice of claim on the City while criminal charges were pending.
The criminal charges against Moreno were dismissed on September 19, 1983.
Six months later, Moreno assigned her rights to the seized funds to her attorney, Paul Lieber.
On March 19, 1984, Lieber demanded the Police Department return the money.
On March 27, 1984, the Police Department informed Lieber that his demand was untimely based on the Administrative Code and *McClendon v. Rosetti*, claiming the funds were deemed abandoned and paid over to the City.
Procedural History
Moreno commenced a common-law replevin action to recover the funds and served a second notice of claim.
The City moved to dismiss, arguing the demand was untimely.
The trial court granted the City’s motion, dismissing the complaint for failure to state a cause of action.
The Appellate Division affirmed without opinion.
The New York Court of Appeals granted Moreno’s motion for leave to appeal.
Issue(s)
Whether a replevin action to recover property seized by the City of New York in connection with a criminal prosecution may be maintained when the owner has not demanded return of the property within 90 days of the dismissal of the criminal charges, given the City’s administrative code provision regarding unclaimed property.
Holding
No, because the Administrative Code provision cited by the City merely fixes the point at which the property clerk may transfer the money to another fund, but it does not impose an obligation on the owner to demand the money within 90 days nor does it impair the owner’s common-law right to demand return of the property seized or its value in a replevin action.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals considered the interplay between the City’s Administrative Code § 435-4.0(e) (now § 14-140(e)), which addresses the handling of unclaimed property by the police property clerk, and the common-law right to replevin.
The Court acknowledged that the Administrative Code allows the property clerk to transfer unclaimed money to the Police Pension Fund after three months.
However, the Court emphasized that the code provision does not impose an affirmative duty on the owner to demand the money within 90 days of the dismissal of criminal charges, nor does it impose a penalty for failing to do so. The court stated: “It does not, in short, impair the owner’s common-law right to demand return of the property seized or its value in a replevin action.”
The court distinguished the City’s reliance on *McClendon v. Rosetti*, noting that while *McClendon* established a procedure for demanding property within 90 days to avoid having to commence a court action, it did not eliminate the owner’s right to pursue other remedies, such as replevin or an Article 78 proceeding.
The Court rejected the City’s argument that failing to claim the funds within three months resulted in the loss of any right of possession. The court clarified that the code provision simply relieves the property clerk of the responsibility of retaining the moneys in custody after the statutory period.
The Court also noted that the claimant bears the burden of proving title and lawful use of the money, but this burden does not negate the right to bring a replevin action.