Opinion
April 4, 1994
Appeal from the County Court, Nassau County (Winick, J.).
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The hearing court properly found that there was a substantial probability that the plaintiff claiming authority would prevail on the issue of forfeiture, that without an order of attachment the assets seized from the defendant's drug-filled apartment — namely, $6,747.30 in small bills — would probably be dissipated, and that the need to attach the assets outweighed any potential hardship to the defendant (see, CPLR 1312; 1311 [1] [a]; Morgenthau v Citisource, Inc., 68 N.Y.2d 211; Kuriansky v Natural Mold Shoe Corp., 133 Misc.2d 489, amended on other grounds upon rearg 136 Misc.2d 684). Lawrence, J.P., Joy, Friedmann and Krausman, JJ., concur.