STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. ONE 1990 FORD THUNDERBIRD

 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-1694-04T11694-04T1

STATE OF NEW JERSEY, by and

through the COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

ONE 1990 FORD THUNDERBIRD, bearing

New Jersey Registration YB158W,

Defendant-in-rem,

and

CAROL THOMAS,

Defendant/Counterclaimant-

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF NEW JERSEY, by and through

the County of Cumberland; ZULIMA V.

FARBER, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NEW JERSEY;

and the COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND,

Counterclaim Defendants-

Respondents.

___________________________________

 

Submitted: March 7, 2006 - Decided March 16, 2006

Before Judges Kestin and Hoens.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Civil Part, Cumberland County, L-720-99.

Jacob & Chiarello, attorneys for appellant (Joseph M. Chiarello together with Scott G. Bullock, of the Pennsylvania and District of Columbia bars, admitted pro hac vice, on the joint brief with William H. Mellor and Dana Berliner, all of the Institute for Justice).

Zulima V. Farber, Attorney General, attorney for respondents (Linda K. Danielson, Deputy Attorney General, of counsel and on the brief).

PER CURIAM

This matter has been before us previously in an interlocutory appeal. On July 21, 2004, in an opinion reported at 371 N.J. Super. 228, we rejected a challenge, based upon the due process of law guarantees of the federal and State constitutions, to the seizure of personal property pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2C:64-6a, a section of New Jersey's criminal instrumentality forfeiture law, N.J.S.A. 2C:64-1 to -9. We reversed a trial court holding to the contrary, and remanded for the entry of an order granting the State's motion for summary judgment. We required, as well, dismissal of the counterclaim for a declaratory judgment, injunctive relief, and an award of attorneys fees and costs in respect of which the trial court had provided for the scheduling of "[a] trial . . . as to damages."

The Supreme Court denied counterclaimant's motion for leave to appeal, and the matter was restored to the trial court's docket. On October 20, 2004, the trial court, as directed, entered an order granting the State's summary judgment motion and dismissing the counterclaim. With the entry of that final order, counterclaimant now appeals as of right.

We affirm the trial court's final disposition on the basis of the reasoning expressed in our earlier opinion.

 

(continued)

(continued)

2

A-1694-04T1

March 16, 2006