Opinion
April 10, 1990
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Jerome Hornblass, J.).
Respondents, the common-law wife and child of a drug-related homicide victim, claim that the search of the decedent's apartment was in violation of the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. According to respondents' attorney, the common-law wife did not voluntarily consent to the search but, rather, consented out of apprehension after viewing photographs of her slain husband's body.
We find the hearsay affirmation of respondents' counsel and the general denial of the answer were insufficient evidentiary proof to rebut the Property Clerk's prima facie case for forfeiture established through the affidavit of Detective Angel Rodriguez and the signed handwritten statements of the respondent herself consenting to the search. In addition, respondent informed the police that the money recovered during the search of the decedent's belongings was, in fact, proceeds from the criminal sale of drugs and, therefore, subject to forfeiture (see, Matter of Property Clerk, N.Y. City Police Dept. v. Batista, 111 A.D.2d 135, 136; Property Clerk of N.Y. City Police Dept. v. Hurlston, 104 A.D.2d 312, 313).
Concur — Kupferman, J.P., Sullivan, Rosenberger, Asch and Smith, JJ.