In a recent ruling, the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York upheld the dismissal of Elisha Merritt's action against the Elmira Police Department Property Clerk. Merritt sought the return of $7,000 that was seized during a police search. The court's decision is significant as it clarifies the handling of property seized in connection with ongoing criminal cases.

The court ruled that Merritt's request for the return of the funds was premature because he was still appealing his criminal conviction. This ruling affects individuals who find themselves in similar situations where seized property is tied to unresolved criminal charges.

Background

The case centers around Elisha Merritt, who was found in possession of cocaine, a firearm, and $7,000 during the execution of a search warrant. Following this incident, he was indicted on charges of criminal possession of a controlled substance with intent to sell, as outlined in Penal Law § 220.16 (1). Merritt pleaded guilty to the charge, affirming his intent to sell the narcotic drug.

After pleading guilty, Merritt appealed his conviction. While this appeal was pending, he filed a lawsuit against the Elmira Police Department Property Clerk, seeking the return of the $7,000 seized during the search. In response, the Chemung County District Attorney initiated a separate action seeking civil forfeiture of the same funds, claiming they were proceeds from Merritt's criminal activities. This situation led to a legal dispute over the rightful ownership of the funds.

The Ruling

On June 4, 2026, the Appellate Division ruled on the case under docket number CV-23-1532. The court affirmed the lower court's decision to dismiss Merritt's complaints, stating that the actions were not ripe for consideration due to the ongoing criminal appeal. The court referenced a previous case, stating, "A property clerk should not be required to release property — where the predicate for release is termination of the criminal proceedings — until direct appeals have been exhausted."

The judges on the panel included Clark, J.P., Aarons, Pritzker, Mackey, and Corcoran. They noted that since Merritt's criminal appeal was still active, the $7,000 could be relevant evidence for any retrial that might occur depending on the outcome of the appeal. The court emphasized that the release of the funds would depend on the approval of the District Attorney's office.

Impact

This ruling has important implications for individuals seeking the return of property seized in connection with criminal investigations. It establishes that such requests may be denied if there are ongoing criminal proceedings related to the property in question. The court's decision reinforces the principle that property related to criminal cases should remain in custody until all legal proceedings are resolved.

Furthermore, the ruling clarifies the responsibilities of property clerks and district attorneys in handling seized property. It indicates that property clerks must wait for the conclusion of criminal appeals before returning seized items, unless the district attorney certifies that the property can be released. This decision could influence future cases involving the return of seized assets and the procedures that must be followed.

What's Next

While Merritt's options for appeal are limited due to the ruling, he may still pursue further legal avenues or seek to resolve the civil forfeiture action initiated by the District Attorney. The outcome of his criminal appeal will also play a critical role in determining the final disposition of the seized funds.