The New York Appellate Division has upheld the forfeiture of a vehicle owned by Hassan Qamar, who was arrested for driving under the influence (DUI). The court ruled that the forfeiture was lawful under Suffolk County's civil forfeiture statute. This decision impacts individuals facing similar charges and reinforces local laws regarding DUI offenses.

The case, Cohen v. A 2019 Nissan (Docket No. 2024-11304), was decided on September 2, 2026. The ruling is significant as it affirms the county's right to seize vehicles involved in DUI incidents, which could deter future offenses. It also clarifies the legal standing of local forfeiture laws in New York.

In this case, Qamar was arrested on February 20, 2022, after a police officer observed him driving at 100 miles per hour in a 35-mile-per-hour zone and running a red light. He had a blood alcohol content of .20%, significantly above the legal limit. Following his arrest, the Suffolk County Police Department seized his Nissan Altima under Suffolk County's forfeiture law.

Qamar contested the forfeiture, arguing that the procedures for post-seizure hearings violated his due process rights and that the law was unconstitutional. He claimed that the forfeiture constituted an excessive fine and was preempted by state law. The case eventually reached the Appellate Division after the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the county.

The Appellate Division, led by Judge James P. McCormack, affirmed the lower court's ruling. The court stated, "The defendant's challenges to the procedures involving the post-seizure hearing have been rendered academic, and that there is no merit to his remaining challenges." This means that the court found no legal basis to overturn the forfeiture based on Qamar's claims.

The court emphasized that Qamar had previously entered into a stipulation that allowed for the return of his vehicle under certain conditions, which included posting a bond and installing an interlock device. Since he agreed to these terms, the court ruled that he could not later claim that his rights were violated.

Furthermore, the court addressed Qamar's argument regarding excessive fines, stating that the seriousness of his DUI offense justified the forfeiture. The ruling noted that the vehicle's value was not grossly disproportionate to the potential punishment for his crime, which included a maximum of four years in prison.

This ruling has broader implications for future DUI cases in New York. It reinforces the authority of local governments to enact forfeiture laws aimed at deterring drunk driving. The decision may also serve as a precedent for other jurisdictions considering similar laws.

In terms of next steps, Qamar has the option to appeal the decision, although details regarding any potential appeal were not available in the court filing. There are no related cases pending that would directly influence this ruling.

The court's decision highlights the ongoing legal battles surrounding civil forfeiture laws and their application in DUI cases. It raises important questions about due process and the balance between public safety and individual rights.

As communities continue to grapple with the consequences of drunk driving, this case underscores the legal framework that supports the seizure of vehicles involved in such offenses. The ruling stands as a reminder of the legal repercussions that can follow a DUI arrest.