Legal Opinion
People v. Florus
New York Supreme Court
Decided October 19, 1971PublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtMorrie Slifkin, J.
In a proceeding to declare the forfeiture of a motor vehicle allegedly used in violation of subdivision 1 of section 3353 of the Public Health Law, defendants move for leave to reargue.
The motion is granted. Upon reargument, the court recalls its decision dated July 1, 1971.
Defendant Florus has moved to dismiss the forfeiture proceeding on two grounds, both involving a determination of law. It is urged that the District Attorney of the County of Orange did not timely institute this proceeding and is therefore barred. The limitation of time is expressed in subdivision 4 of section 3353 of the…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- One 1958 Plymouth Sedan v. PennsylvaniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1965
- Marvin v. . MarvinNew York Court of Appeals · 1878
- Matter of Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. BolandNew York Court of Appeals · 1939
- Fisk Discount Corp. v. Brooklyn Taxicab Trans. Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1946
- Chmielewski v. RosettiAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York · 1969
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- American International Pictures, Inc. v. ForemanCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1978
- Hall v. SchoenwetterSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1996
- Frost v. City of Walla WallaWashington Supreme Court · 1986
- Herndon v. City of IthacaAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1973
- People v. Hoats, New York County Courts1979
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.