Lawsuit: County of Suffolk Releases Seized Vehicles to Third Parties Without Owners’ Consent

New to ClassAction.org? Read our Newswire Disclaimer

A proposed class action lawsuit filed in New York claims the County of Suffolk and several of its employees unlawfully release seized vehicles to third parties without providing proper notice to the vehicles’ owners as well as an opportunity to dispute the release of their vehicles.

The lawsuit also condemns the Incorporated Village of Westhampton Beach, the Town of East Hampton, the Incorporated Village of Southampton, and M&T Bank for the parties’ alleged participation in the practice.

According to the case, the chain of allegedly unlawful events begins when the township defendants release vehicles seized during arrests to the County of Suffolk without the car owners’ permission “or an opportunity to be heard prior to such unauthorized transfer.” Instead of filing forfeiture actions against the cars’ owners as part of proper judicial process, the County defendants attempt to contact third parties, such as lienholders and leasing companies, who may have an interest in the seized vehicles and inform them that they can repossess the cars by merely filling out “standard form agreements” and paying “storage fees” that typically range between $4,000 and $6,000, the case explains.

The vehicles’ owners, the lawsuit continues, many times are not informed that their cars have been released until they are contacted by the aforementioned third parties with demands for the entire amount still owed on their loans plus the storage fees paid by the third parties.

The case argues that this practice is unlawful and violates “due process constraints made clear in Alexandre v. Cortes,” during which The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled that municipalities cannot release seized vehicles to third parties without the owners’ consent unless the owners are afforded notice and an opportunity to challenge the release.

Moreover, the lawsuit claims the defendants are fully aware that this practice is unlawful and cites several written communications wherein attorneys for lienholders and leasing companies advised the defendants that their procedure runs afoul of precedent set by the previous court ruling.

The case argues that the defendants’ process attempts to avoid judicial oversight and robs individuals of the right to reclaim their property. From the complaint:

“The plaintiff asserts that the defendants herein deprived both the plaintiff, and hundreds of others who are similarly situated, of their respective property interests in their ownership, possession, and use of motor vehicles, without Due Process of law.”