This subchapter applies solely to cases brought to determine the validity of post-seizure retention of vehicles by the Police Department or other agency as evidence or for prospective or pending actions to forfeit such vehicles. Chapter 1 of this title also applies to such cases except to the extent that it is inconsistent with this subchapter. Cases concerning retention of vehicles seized as evidence or for prospective or pending actions to forfeit such vehicles pursuant to § 14-140 of the New York City Administrative Code shall also be governed by Krimstock v. Kelly, 99 Civ. 12041 (MBM), amended order and judgment (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 22, 2004), and any amendments, modifications and revisions thereof.
For purposes of this subchapter, the agency seeking to retain the vehicle will be the petitioner, and the claimant to the vehicle will be the respondent, as defined in § 1-01 of this title.
(a) The time provided in § 1-26(d) for service of the notice of trial does not apply.
(b) Notwithstanding § 1-24 of this title, the respondent may serve and file an answer at any time until the commencement of the hearing.
A motion by the petitioner, after the conclusion of the respondent's evidence, for a continuance of trial to present rebuttal evidence in the form of testimony from witnesses not called on the petitioner's case-in-chief, may be granted for good cause shown.
Pursuant to § 1-45 of this title, where an owner of a vehicle fails to appear for trial, having been properly served with required notices, the petitioner need not prove that such owner "permitted or suffered" the allegedly illegal use of the seized vehicle.
Go Here for Annotation 2-45
Notwithstanding § 1-51 of this title, the recording of the trial or of other proceedings in the case, whether electronic or stenographic, may not be transcribed except (i) upon request and payment of reasonable transcription costs, (ii) upon direction of the administrative law judge, in his or her discretion, or (iii) as otherwise required by law.