Opinion
May 24, 1990
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Karla Moskowitz, J.).
The inadvertent and premature sale of the subject vehicles prior to the trial court's determination of the forfeiture action, while divesting the trial court of its in rem jurisdiction over the subject vehicles (see, Tracey v. Corse, 58 N.Y. 143, 151; see also, Santora Equip. Corp. v. City of New York, 138 Misc.2d 631), did not divest the trial court of its in personam jurisdiction over the defendant owner. Thus, while insufficient to fix the status of the property irrevocably as to all the world, such jurisdiction was sufficient to validly adjudicate the owner's interest in the vehicles pursuant to Administrative Code § 16-119 (e) (2).
Defendant cannot herein collaterally attack the validity of the three determinations of the Environmental Control Board on which the forfeiture was based, as it failed to exhaust its administrative remedies (Watergate II Apts. v. Buffalo Sewer Auth., 46 N.Y.2d 52, 57) and did not seek to timely commence a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78. (See, Matter of Lewis Tree Serv. v. Fire Dept., 66 N.Y.2d 667, 669.) Defendant's constitutional claims have been reviewed and are without merit. The forfeiture procedures as applied here satisfy minimum procedural due process requirements. (See, Morgenthau v Citisource, Inc., 68 N.Y.2d 211, 220-223.)
Concur — Kupferman, J.P., Carro, Milonas, Kassal and Ellerin, JJ.