Legal Opinion

Cuomo v. Uppal

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Decided December 17, 2009PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Contrary to plaintiffs’ claim, Capital does not have to await the conclusion of this forfeiture action to request the release of funds; paragraph 7 of the parties’ stipulation reserved Capital’s right to make motions.

Also contrary to plaintiffs’ contention, Capital is not limited to the remedy of receiving proceeds from a forfeiture sale; unlike the situation in Property Clerk of N.Y. City Police Dept. v Molomo (81 NY2d 936 [1993]) and City of New York v Salomon (161 AD2d 470 [1990]), the property in which Capital has a perfected security interest is not the instrumentality of a crime.…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Bertoni v. CatucciAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1986
  2. City of New York v. SalamonAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1990
  3. Property Clerk of New York City Police Department v. MolomoNew York Court of Appeals · 1993

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. AQ Asset Management LLC v. LevineAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2017
  2. 111 W. 57th Inv. LLC v. 111 W57th Prop. Owner LLCAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2020

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API