United States v. Real Property Located at 1 Central Park West

Background

The United States brought a civil forfeiture action seeking forfeiture of the real property located at 1 Central Park West, Unit 32G, New York, New York, 10023. The Government moved under 18 U.S.C. § 981(g)(1) to stay, or pause, discovery for six months because of a related ongoing criminal investigation. The claimant opposed the motion, arguing that related criminal acts connected to the property’s purchase were subject to a five-year limitations period. The Government also submitted confidential materials to the court without disclosing them publicly, as permitted by 18 U.S.C. § 981(g)(5) when disclosure could harm an ongoing criminal investigation or trial.

Legal standard and analysis

Under § 981(g)(1), a court must stay a civil forfeiture proceeding if civil discovery would adversely affect the Government’s ability to conduct a related criminal investigation or prosecute a related criminal case. The court identified two required findings: the civil forfeiture matter and the criminal matter must be related, and continuing the forfeiture case must burden the investigation or prosecution.

The court found sufficient overlap between the two matters because the Government’s submissions showed that they were based on similar facts and circumstances. The court also rejected the claimant’s argument that all related proceedings were necessarily time-barred, finding that the Government had presented a theory for a timely and related criminal investigation.

The court further found that civil discovery could harm the criminal investigation. Civil discovery is generally broader than criminal discovery, and proceeding could require the Government to disclose sensitive witnesses or disrupt a criminal investigation that was not public. The court stated that discovery requests did not need to have been served before a stay could be granted.

Ruling

Judge Katherine Polk Failla granted the Government’s motion to stay. The civil forfeiture action is stayed until November 20, 2025. On or before that date, the parties must submit a joint letter stating their positions on whether the stay should be lifted. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the pending motion at docket entry 42.