We are checking for the latest updates in this case. We will email you when the process is complete.

Psny Ex. Rel. Cassidy Lane, Esq. On Behalf Of Julio Medina V. Louis Molina, Commissioner, New York City Department Of Correction

Case Last Refreshed: 5 months ago

Psny Ex. Rel. Cassidy Lane, Esq. On Behalf Of Julio Medina, filed a(n) Habeas Corpus - Criminal case represented by Lee, Yung-Mi, against Louis Molina, Commissioner, New York City Department Of Correction, in the jurisdiction of Kings County. This case was filed in Kings County Superior Courts .

Case Details for Psny Ex. Rel. Cassidy Lane, Esq. On Behalf Of Julio Medina v. Louis Molina, Commissioner, New York City Department Of Correction

Filing Date

February 21, 2024

Category

Other Matters - Habeas Corpus

Last Refreshed

February 23, 2024

Practice Area

Criminal

Filing Location

Kings County, NY

Matter Type

Habeas Corpus

Parties for Psny Ex. Rel. Cassidy Lane, Esq. On Behalf Of Julio Medina v. Louis Molina, Commissioner, New York City Department Of Correction

Plaintiffs

Psny Ex. Rel. Cassidy Lane, Esq. On Behalf Of Julio Medina

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Lee, Yung-Mi

Defendants

Louis Molina, Commissioner, New York City Department Of Correction

Case Documents for Psny Ex. Rel. Cassidy Lane, Esq. On Behalf Of Julio Medina v. Louis Molina, Commissioner, New York City Department Of Correction

Case Events for Psny Ex. Rel. Cassidy Lane, Esq. On Behalf Of Julio Medina v. Louis Molina, Commissioner, New York City Department Of Correction

Type Description
AFFIRMATION/AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE
Affidavit of Service
STATEMENT OF AUTHORIZATION FOR ELECTRONIC FILING
Supervising Attorney Authorization BDS (Yung-Mi Lee)
NO FEE AUTHORIZATION (LETTER/ORDER/AFFIRMATION)
BDS fee waiver letter
WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
Entire Writ - Julio Medina
Petition - Julio Medina
See all events

Related Content in Kings County

Case

Workers' Compensation Board Of The State Of New York v. Rs Marano Management Corp
Jul 18, 2024 | Other Matters - Workers Comp App for Judgment | Other Matters - Workers Comp App for Judgment | 091588/2024

Case

Shania Lawrence v. Eddy Ceballos, Jdo Transport, Llc
Jul 17, 2024 | Torts - Other Negligence (Premises Forklift) | Torts - Other Negligence (Premises Forklift) | 519204/2024

Case

Avinash Guyaram v. Meira Labrie
Jul 17, 2024 | Torts - Motor Vehicle | Torts - Motor Vehicle | 519230/2024

Case

In The Matter Of The Petition Of J.G. Wentworth Originations, Llc v. Prudential Insurance Company Of America, Prudential Assigned Settlement Services Corp., Jason Peoples
Jul 17, 2024 | NO JUSTICE ASSIGNED | Special Proceedings - Other (Transfer-Structured Sett.) | Special Proceedings - Other (Transfer-Structured Sett.) | 519340/2024

Case

309 10th Owner Llc v. Marilyn Scalise
Jul 17, 2024 | NO JUSTICE ASSIGNED | Special Proceedings - Other (881 Petition) | Special Proceedings - Other (881 Petition) | 519262/2024

Case

Manar Kalefa v. Maurice Sedacey
Jul 18, 2024 | Torts - Motor Vehicle | Torts - Motor Vehicle | 519423/2024

Case

Carlos Contreras v. Santana Chirino, Tareq Mahafzeh
Jul 18, 2024 | Torts - Motor Vehicle | Torts - Motor Vehicle | 519485/2024

Ruling

THE PEOPLE VS. $14, 240.00 U.S.CURRENCY
Jul 18, 2024 | CVPT21-0197475
THE PEOPLE VS. $14, 240.00 U.S. CURRENCY Case Number: CVPT21-0197475 Tentative Ruling on Motion for Default Judgment: The People of the State of California move for forfeiture of $11,440.00 US Currency pursuant to Health and Safety Code 11488.5(b)(1). Hearing on this Motion for Default Judgment was continued from April 15, 2024 to permit the People to cure the following defects: 1) improper proof of service, 2) improperly verified declaration. Both defects have been cured. Merits: Currency that is “furnished or intended to be furnished by any person in exchange for a controlled substance” or used or intended to be used to facilitate particular provisions of the Health and Safety Code are subject to seizure and forfeiture. Health and Safety Code § 11470. The judicial and/or administrative procedure for forfeiture is laid out generally in Health and Safety Code §§ 11488.4 and 11488.5. For a judicial forfeiture the District Attorney’s Office (or other agency) is required to file a Petition for Forfeiture. Health and Safety Code § 11488.4(a). The Petition for Forfeiture must be served on the individuals from whom the property was seized. Health and Safety Code § 11488.5(c). This service is in addition to the service of a notice at the time of the seizure. Id. Notices of forfeiture must also be published for three consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation in the county where the subject property was seized. Health and Safety Code § 11488.4(e). The notice must contain a description of the property, the appraised value of the property, the date and place of seizure or location of any property not seized but subject to forfeiture, the violation of the law alleged with respect to forfeiture of the property, and the instructions for filing and serving a claim. Health and Safety Code § 11488.4(j). To challenge the forfeiture, any person claiming an interest in seized property must file a verified claim within 30 days after receipt of actual notice. Health and Safety § 11488.5(a)(1). If at the end of the 30-day period, or after 30 days from the date of the last publication, there is no claim on file, the court upon motion shall declare the property forfeited. Health and Safety Code § 11488.5(b)(1). If no timely claim is filed, the Court, upon motion, shall declare the property seized or subject to forfeiture upon a showing by the District Attorney that there is a prima facie case in support of the forfeiture. Health and Safety Code § 11488.5(b)(1). Under either state or federal law, the “probable cause” standard represents the minimum prima facie case the People must make to obtain a default forfeiture judgment. People v. $47,050 (1993) 17 Cal.App.4th 1319, 1325, fn. 6. A prima face case of probable cause for forfeiture is that minimal level of evidence to support the conclusion that the illegal activities alleged specifically related to narcotics trafficking, or evidence linking the cash to a narcotics transaction. People v. $497,590 United States Currency (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 145, 154. An expert’s opinion on an ultimate issue of fact is admissible and may constitute substantial evidence in forfeiture matters where is based on an adequate factual foundation showing a nexus between the cash seized and narcotics trafficking. People v. $47,050, supra 17 Cal.App.4th at 1325. Here, the subject property was seized from Marty Hilliard, who was served the required notices and signed the acknowledgement of receipt. Hilliard filed a Claim Opposing Forfeiture on June 4, 2021. The People filed a Petition for Forfeiture in Rem on June 24, 2021. The Petition was served on Hilliard by mail. After multiple failures to appear at hearings regarding the Claim, and the imposition of sanctions, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal for failure to appear. On April 17, 2023, the Court dismissed the Claim pursuant to Gov’t Code section 68608(b). Notice was properly published in the Record Searchlight on April 21, 2024, April 28, 2024, and May 5, 2024. As for the prima facie case, Petitioner has met its burden. Officer Seth Edwards has provided the necessary expert opinion that the seized currency was furnished or was intended to be furnished by a person in exchange for a controlled substance, was proceeds traceable to an exchange of controlled substances or was/intended to be used to facilitate conduct in violation of Health and Safety Code §§ 11359 and/or 11360. His opinion is supported by the foundational facts that: the $11,440.00 US Currency was found in Mr. Hillard’s residence, along with 6 ounces of methamphetamine, one ounce of heroin, packaging materials, and a digital scale. Petitioner has provided the required evidence to establish a prima facie case of forfeiture. The Motion for Default Judgment is GRANTED. A proposed order and judgment has been lodged and will be executed.

Ruling

The People of the State of California vs. $12,276.00 U.S. Currency
Jul 15, 2024 | 24CV-0204435
U.S. CURRENCY Case Number: 24CV-0204435 This matter is on calendar for review regarding status of return of funds. At the last hearing on June 10, 2024, the People advised the Court that the underlying criminal case was dismissed. The People further advised they intended to dismiss this case. The Court directed return of the funds to the Claimant. A Motion to Dismiss has been filed. However, the return of funds has not been addressed. An appearance is necessary on today’s calendar to address the status of the return of funds. THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA VS. $1000.00

Ruling

The People of the State of California vs. $1000.00 U.S. Currency
Jul 15, 2024 | 22CV-0199795
U.S. CURRENCY Case Number: 22CV-0199795 This consolidated asset forfeiture matter is on calendar for review regarding status of criminal proceedings and amended petition. On June 10, 2024, the People advised the Court that Judgment and Sentencing in the underlying criminal matter was set for June 13, 2024. No amended petition has been filed. No status report has been filed. An appearance is necessary on today’s calendar to provide the Court with a status of the criminal proceeding and amended petition.

Ruling

THE PEOPLE VS. $14, 240.00 U.S.CURRENCY
Jul 19, 2024 | CVPT21-0197475
THE PEOPLE VS. $14, 240.00 U.S. CURRENCY Case Number: CVPT21-0197475 Tentative Ruling on Motion for Default Judgment: The People of the State of California move for forfeiture of $11,440.00 US Currency pursuant to Health and Safety Code 11488.5(b)(1). Hearing on this Motion for Default Judgment was continued from April 15, 2024 to permit the People to cure the following defects: 1) improper proof of service, 2) improperly verified declaration. Both defects have been cured. Merits: Currency that is “furnished or intended to be furnished by any person in exchange for a controlled substance” or used or intended to be used to facilitate particular provisions of the Health and Safety Code are subject to seizure and forfeiture. Health and Safety Code § 11470. The judicial and/or administrative procedure for forfeiture is laid out generally in Health and Safety Code §§ 11488.4 and 11488.5. For a judicial forfeiture the District Attorney’s Office (or other agency) is required to file a Petition for Forfeiture. Health and Safety Code § 11488.4(a). The Petition for Forfeiture must be served on the individuals from whom the property was seized. Health and Safety Code § 11488.5(c). This service is in addition to the service of a notice at the time of the seizure. Id. Notices of forfeiture must also be published for three consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation in the county where the subject property was seized. Health and Safety Code § 11488.4(e). The notice must contain a description of the property, the appraised value of the property, the date and place of seizure or location of any property not seized but subject to forfeiture, the violation of the law alleged with respect to forfeiture of the property, and the instructions for filing and serving a claim. Health and Safety Code § 11488.4(j). To challenge the forfeiture, any person claiming an interest in seized property must file a verified claim within 30 days after receipt of actual notice. Health and Safety § 11488.5(a)(1). If at the end of the 30-day period, or after 30 days from the date of the last publication, there is no claim on file, the court upon motion shall declare the property forfeited. Health and Safety Code § 11488.5(b)(1). If no timely claim is filed, the Court, upon motion, shall declare the property seized or subject to forfeiture upon a showing by the District Attorney that there is a prima facie case in support of the forfeiture. Health and Safety Code § 11488.5(b)(1). Under either state or federal law, the “probable cause” standard represents the minimum prima facie case the People must make to obtain a default forfeiture judgment. People v. $47,050 (1993) 17 Cal.App.4th 1319, 1325, fn. 6. A prima face case of probable cause for forfeiture is that minimal level of evidence to support the conclusion that the illegal activities alleged specifically related to narcotics trafficking, or evidence linking the cash to a narcotics transaction. People v. $497,590 United States Currency (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 145, 154. An expert’s opinion on an ultimate issue of fact is admissible and may constitute substantial evidence in forfeiture matters where is based on an adequate factual foundation showing a nexus between the cash seized and narcotics trafficking. People v. $47,050, supra 17 Cal.App.4th at 1325. Here, the subject property was seized from Marty Hilliard, who was served the required notices and signed the acknowledgement of receipt. Hilliard filed a Claim Opposing Forfeiture on June 4, 2021. The People filed a Petition for Forfeiture in Rem on June 24, 2021. The Petition was served on Hilliard by mail. After multiple failures to appear at hearings regarding the Claim, and the imposition of sanctions, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal for failure to appear. On April 17, 2023, the Court dismissed the Claim pursuant to Gov’t Code section 68608(b). Notice was properly published in the Record Searchlight on April 21, 2024, April 28, 2024, and May 5, 2024. As for the prima facie case, Petitioner has met its burden. Officer Seth Edwards has provided the necessary expert opinion that the seized currency was furnished or was intended to be furnished by a person in exchange for a controlled substance, was proceeds traceable to an exchange of controlled substances or was/intended to be used to facilitate conduct in violation of Health and Safety Code §§ 11359 and/or 11360. His opinion is supported by the foundational facts that: the $11,440.00 US Currency was found in Mr. Hillard’s residence, along with 6 ounces of methamphetamine, one ounce of heroin, packaging materials, and a digital scale. Petitioner has provided the required evidence to establish a prima facie case of forfeiture. The Motion for Default Judgment is GRANTED. A proposed order and judgment has been lodged and will be executed.

Ruling

The People of the State of California vs. $12,276.00 U.S. Currency
Jul 19, 2024 | 24CV-0204435
U.S. CURRENCY Case Number: 24CV-0204435 This matter is on calendar for review regarding status of return of funds. At the last hearing on June 10, 2024, the People advised the Court that the underlying criminal case was dismissed. The People further advised they intended to dismiss this case. The Court directed return of the funds to the Claimant. A Motion to Dismiss has been filed. However, the return of funds has not been addressed. An appearance is necessary on today’s calendar to address the status of the return of funds. THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA VS. $1000.00

Ruling

The People of the State of California vs. $1000.00 U.S. Currency
Jul 19, 2024 | 22CV-0199795
U.S. CURRENCY Case Number: 22CV-0199795 This consolidated asset forfeiture matter is on calendar for review regarding status of criminal proceedings and amended petition. On June 10, 2024, the People advised the Court that Judgment and Sentencing in the underlying criminal matter was set for June 13, 2024. No amended petition has been filed. No status report has been filed. An appearance is necessary on today’s calendar to provide the Court with a status of the criminal proceeding and amended petition.

Ruling

THE PEOPLE VS. $14, 240.00 U.S.CURRENCY
Jul 15, 2024 | CVPT21-0197475
THE PEOPLE VS. $14, 240.00 U.S. CURRENCY Case Number: CVPT21-0197475 Tentative Ruling on Motion for Default Judgment: The People of the State of California move for forfeiture of $11,440.00 US Currency pursuant to Health and Safety Code 11488.5(b)(1). Hearing on this Motion for Default Judgment was continued from April 15, 2024 to permit the People to cure the following defects: 1) improper proof of service, 2) improperly verified declaration. Both defects have been cured. Merits: Currency that is “furnished or intended to be furnished by any person in exchange for a controlled substance” or used or intended to be used to facilitate particular provisions of the Health and Safety Code are subject to seizure and forfeiture. Health and Safety Code § 11470. The judicial and/or administrative procedure for forfeiture is laid out generally in Health and Safety Code §§ 11488.4 and 11488.5. For a judicial forfeiture the District Attorney’s Office (or other agency) is required to file a Petition for Forfeiture. Health and Safety Code § 11488.4(a). The Petition for Forfeiture must be served on the individuals from whom the property was seized. Health and Safety Code § 11488.5(c). This service is in addition to the service of a notice at the time of the seizure. Id. Notices of forfeiture must also be published for three consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation in the county where the subject property was seized. Health and Safety Code § 11488.4(e). The notice must contain a description of the property, the appraised value of the property, the date and place of seizure or location of any property not seized but subject to forfeiture, the violation of the law alleged with respect to forfeiture of the property, and the instructions for filing and serving a claim. Health and Safety Code § 11488.4(j). To challenge the forfeiture, any person claiming an interest in seized property must file a verified claim within 30 days after receipt of actual notice. Health and Safety § 11488.5(a)(1). If at the end of the 30-day period, or after 30 days from the date of the last publication, there is no claim on file, the court upon motion shall declare the property forfeited. Health and Safety Code § 11488.5(b)(1). If no timely claim is filed, the Court, upon motion, shall declare the property seized or subject to forfeiture upon a showing by the District Attorney that there is a prima facie case in support of the forfeiture. Health and Safety Code § 11488.5(b)(1). Under either state or federal law, the “probable cause” standard represents the minimum prima facie case the People must make to obtain a default forfeiture judgment. People v. $47,050 (1993) 17 Cal.App.4th 1319, 1325, fn. 6. A prima face case of probable cause for forfeiture is that minimal level of evidence to support the conclusion that the illegal activities alleged specifically related to narcotics trafficking, or evidence linking the cash to a narcotics transaction. People v. $497,590 United States Currency (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 145, 154. An expert’s opinion on an ultimate issue of fact is admissible and may constitute substantial evidence in forfeiture matters where is based on an adequate factual foundation showing a nexus between the cash seized and narcotics trafficking. People v. $47,050, supra 17 Cal.App.4th at 1325. Here, the subject property was seized from Marty Hilliard, who was served the required notices and signed the acknowledgement of receipt. Hilliard filed a Claim Opposing Forfeiture on June 4, 2021. The People filed a Petition for Forfeiture in Rem on June 24, 2021. The Petition was served on Hilliard by mail. After multiple failures to appear at hearings regarding the Claim, and the imposition of sanctions, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal for failure to appear. On April 17, 2023, the Court dismissed the Claim pursuant to Gov’t Code section 68608(b). Notice was properly published in the Record Searchlight on April 21, 2024, April 28, 2024, and May 5, 2024. As for the prima facie case, Petitioner has met its burden. Officer Seth Edwards has provided the necessary expert opinion that the seized currency was furnished or was intended to be furnished by a person in exchange for a controlled substance, was proceeds traceable to an exchange of controlled substances or was/intended to be used to facilitate conduct in violation of Health and Safety Code §§ 11359 and/or 11360. His opinion is supported by the foundational facts that: the $11,440.00 US Currency was found in Mr. Hillard’s residence, along with 6 ounces of methamphetamine, one ounce of heroin, packaging materials, and a digital scale. Petitioner has provided the required evidence to establish a prima facie case of forfeiture. The Motion for Default Judgment is GRANTED. A proposed order and judgment has been lodged and will be executed.

Ruling

The People of the State of California vs. $12,276.00 U.S. Currency
Jul 17, 2024 | 24CV-0204435
U.S. CURRENCY Case Number: 24CV-0204435 This matter is on calendar for review regarding status of return of funds. At the last hearing on June 10, 2024, the People advised the Court that the underlying criminal case was dismissed. The People further advised they intended to dismiss this case. The Court directed return of the funds to the Claimant. A Motion to Dismiss has been filed. However, the return of funds has not been addressed. An appearance is necessary on today’s calendar to address the status of the return of funds. THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA VS. $1000.00

Ruling

DOBBINS, et al. vs. CARE OPTIONS MANAGEMENT PLANSAND SUPPORT
Jul 21, 2024 | CVCV20-0194615
PLANSAND SUPPORT Case Number: CVCV20-0194615 This matter is on calendar for review regarding trial re-setting. The parties have filed a Joint Case Management Statement which requests a continuance to explore informal resolution and a second mediation. In light of the foregoing, this matter is continued to Monday, September 9, 2024, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 64. No appearance is necessary on today’s calendar.

Document

Andrew Zywiec M.D. v. The Brooklyn Hospital Center
Feb 24, 2022 | Ingrid Joseph | Other Matters - Contract - Other | Other Matters - Contract - Other | 537321/2022

Document

Crown Asset Management Llc v. Alexander Mamontov
Jul 15, 2024 | Other Matters - Consumer Credit (Card) Debt Buyer Plaintiff | Other Matters - Consumer Credit (Card) Debt Buyer Plaintiff | 519080/2024

Document

Dilfuza Tashbaeva v. Sohib Huramov
Jan 30, 2019 | Rachel Adams | Matrimonial - Contested | Matrimonial - Contested | 50456/2020

Document

Joan Winn v. Target Corporation
Jul 18, 2024 | Torts - Other Negligence (Premises) | Torts - Other Negligence (Premises) | 519375/2024

Document

57 Jay Owner Llc, 57 Jay Owner 2 Llc, 57 Jay Owner 3, Llc, David Brooks, Tora Lopez v. Round Of Appaws Inc. d/b/a HOUNDS TOWN USA
Nov 21, 2022 | Rupert Barry | Real Property - Other (Landlord/Tenant) | Real Property - Other (Landlord/Tenant) | 516554/2024

Document

Leonard Roberts v. U-Haul, Richard H Void
Jul 16, 2024 | Torts - Motor Vehicle | Torts - Motor Vehicle | 519141/2024