DiFiore v. Armstrong

Posted by Asset Forfeiture Attorney Steven Kessler.

DiFiore v. Armstrong, slip op., Index No. 08-15266 (Sup. Ct. Westchester County Oct. 1, 2008) (Molea, J.). The Court found that the District Attorney’s office in a civil forfeiture proceeding commenced under CPLR Article 13-A had failed to meet its evidentiary burden on a motion to attach a vehicle seized incident to a drug arrest, where there was no showing that the owner of the vehicle – the spouse of the arrestee – had reason to know that the vehicle would be used for criminal activity.

Be Sociable, Share!

One Response to “DiFiore v. Armstrong”

  1. lois Says:

    This site was very helpful. I found case history that may help with me fighting my case. The problem I have is I filed for one thing and now I have to change because the property is gone and sold under an Administrative Forfeiture. I was told they couldn’t do this till there was an agreement or a decision made in a court and if I didn’t agree with the decision of the agency I could file in court and the halt on any forfeiture would stay until a ruling, but they went and sold the car in auction even after they were notified of a complaint filed in dist court. Now they claim my motion to release should be denied because there is no property to return. And they state the judge has no authority to rule on this because there is no property. I’m no lawyer, but ….The articles I have read on this cite have enlightened me on cases that could help me defend my postion. Thanks Would still like to hear from you for that 20 min consultation.


Please Share Your Thoughts!

I look forward to your thoughts and comments about this article. Please complete the easy comment submission form below to let me know what you think! Also note: all comments are reviewed by the moderator before they are made public.

CommentLuv badge

*
To prove you're a person (not a spam script), type the security word shown in the picture. Click on the picture to hear an audio file of the word.
Anti-spam image