Property Clerk v. Ferris, 77 N.Y.2d 428 (1991)

In civil forfeiture proceedings under the New York City Administrative Code, courts lack the authority to dismiss a forfeiture petition in the interests of justice once it is established that the property was used unlawfully, and a prosecutor’s promise to release seized property does not bind the Property Clerk, an independent agency.

Summary

This case concerns the forfeiture of an automobile seized following respondent Ferris’s arrest for drug possession. The Property Clerk sought forfeiture under the New York City Administrative Code. While the lower courts found the vehicle subject to forfeiture, they dismissed the petition in the interest of justice, believing its release was part of Ferris’s plea bargain. The New York Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the courts lacked the authority to dismiss the forfeiture action based on equitable considerations or prosecutorial promises, as the Administrative Code mandates forfeiture once unlawful use is established, and the Property Clerk is an independent agency not bound by the prosecutor’s actions.

Facts

Respondent Ferris was arrested for drug possession after being observed purchasing drugs and driving away with passengers, who also possessed drugs. A search revealed Ferris was holding a packet containing PCP. Ferris later pleaded guilty to disorderly conduct. As part of the plea agreement, the prosecutor agreed to release Ferris’s vehicle and notified the Property Clerk that the vehicle was no longer needed as evidence. The Property Clerk then initiated a civil forfeiture proceeding to retain possession of the vehicle.

Procedural History

The trial court initially found the vehicle subject to forfeiture but dismissed the petition in the interests of justice, influenced by the plea agreement in the criminal case. The Appellate Division affirmed this decision. The Property Clerk appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.

Issue(s)

Whether a court has the authority to dismiss a civil forfeiture petition under the New York City Administrative Code in the interests of justice, based on a plea agreement in the related criminal case where the prosecutor promised to release the seized property.

Holding

No, because the New York City Administrative Code mandates forfeiture once it’s established that the property was used unlawfully, and courts lack the power to dismiss the petition absent express statutory authorization. The prosecutor’s promise does not bind the Property Clerk, an independent agency.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals emphasized the mandatory language of Section 14-140 of the Administrative Code, stating that once the Property Clerk establishes unlawful use, the property “should have been declared forfeited.” The Court distinguished this case from CPLR 1311(4), which allows dismissal of forfeiture actions in the interest of justice, noting that this provision applies to a different forfeiture scheme and does not supersede the authority to enforce other legal remedies. The Court also distinguished this case from Matter of Chaipis v. State Liq. Auth., where a prosecutor’s promise was given weight in a licensing decision. Here, the Property Clerk is an independent agency without discretion to recognize respondent as a “lawful claimant,” and the court cannot compel the Property Clerk to return the vehicle without statutory authorization. The court noted that if Ferris was misled by the prosecutor’s promise, his remedy was to move to vacate his plea. The court reasoned, “The Property Clerk is a separate and independent agency and has no discretion under the Code to recognize respondent as a ‘lawful claimant entitled to * * * such * * * property’ (Administrative Code § 14-140 [e] [1]).” Therefore, the Court reversed the Appellate Division’s order and granted the petition for forfeiture.