68 N.Y.2d 211 (1986)
New York’s CPLR Article 13-A permits the pre-conviction attachment of a criminal defendant’s assets, not limited to proceeds of the crime, to ensure funds are available for potential forfeiture judgments, provided due process safeguards are met.
Summary
The District Attorney sought to attach assets of defendants indicted for “post-conviction forfeiture crimes” under CPLR Article 13-A. The lower courts disagreed on whether assets beyond the direct proceeds of the alleged crimes could be seized pre-conviction. The Court of Appeals held that the statute allows such seizure to ensure funds are available for potential forfeiture judgments, but emphasizes that due process rights must be carefully protected. The court found that the statute contained sufficient safeguards to satisfy due process requirements, including notice requirements, burden of proof, and opportunities to challenge the attachment.
Facts
Robert Morgenthau, the District Attorney, initiated a civil forfeiture action against Citisource, Inc., Marvin Kaplan, Stanley Friedman, and others, seeking $4.49 million. Kaplan, Friedman, and others were indicted on various felony charges, including violations of the Donnelly Act, the Martin Act, grand larceny, bribery, bribe receiving, and conspiracy. Morgenthau obtained ex parte orders to attach certain assets belonging to Kaplan and Friedman and to restrain the alienation of funds in Kaplan’s retirement trust account. The claiming authority asserted that these provisional remedies were necessary to prevent the dissipation of assets that would be subject to a judgment if the defendants were convicted.
Procedural History
The Supreme Court denied the defendant’s motion to vacate the attachment and injunction, confirming the attachment on the funds already levied. The Appellate Division modified and vacated the Supreme Court’s order, limiting attachment only to assets directly traceable to the alleged crimes. The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division’s order. The case was remitted to the Appellate Division to consider the factual issues and arguments not previously addressed.
Issue(s)
1. Whether CPLR Article 13-A authorizes the pre-conviction attachment of a putative “criminal defendant’s” assets that are not directly traceable to the alleged crime?
2. Whether CPLR Article 13-A, as interpreted to allow pre-conviction attachment of untainted assets, violates the defendant’s federal constitutional rights to due process and right to counsel?
Holding
1. Yes, because the statute explicitly allows for provisional remedies, including attachment, in actions relating to post-conviction forfeiture crimes prior to conviction to prevent the dissipation of assets that would be subject to judgment.
2. No, because the statute provides sufficient procedural safeguards to protect the defendants’ interests and minimizes the risk of erroneous deprivation of property.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court reasoned that the legislative intent behind CPLR Article 13-A was to “take the profit out of crime.” The statute allows forfeiture actions against “criminal defendants” resulting in a judgment recovering proceeds of the crime or a money judgment equivalent in value to those proceeds (CPLR 1311[1]). The availability of provisional remedies such as attachment is crucial to prevent defendants from dissipating assets before a judgment can be obtained. The court emphasized that a contrary interpretation would contravene the legislative purpose.
Addressing the due process challenge, the Court applied the balancing test from Mathews v. Eldridge, considering the private interest affected, the risk of erroneous deprivation, and the government’s interest. The Court acknowledged the defendant’s interest in possessing their assets, but weighed this against the government’s strong interest in deterring crime and preserving assets for victims. The Court determined that CPLR Article 13-A provides sufficient safeguards, including the requirements for the claiming authority to demonstrate a substantial probability of success on the issue of forfeiture, that failure to enter the order may result in proceeds being unavailable, and that the need to preserve the property outweighs any hardship on the defendants (CPLR 1312[3]). These safeguards ensure compliance with due process requirements.
Regarding the right to counsel, the Court stated that while pre-conviction asset attachment could potentially infringe on the ability to hire counsel, CPLR 1312(3) requires the claiming authority to prove the need for the provisional remedy outweighs the hardship on any party. The court can also consider the impact of forfeiture on the defendant (CPLR 1311[4][d][i]).
The Court specifically noted, “[Provisional remedies * * * shall be available in all actions to recover property or for a money judgment” (CPLR 1312 [1]).”