seizing authority in this case “has a direct pecuniary interest in the outcome of the proceeding.” James Daniel Good Real Prop., 510 U.S. at 55-56, 114 S.Ct. 492; see also Property Clerk v. Hyne, 147 Misc.2d 774, 780, 557 N.Y.S.2d 244, 248 (Sup.Ct.N.Y.Co.1990) (noting that § 14-140’s “remedial purposes” include the fact that “revenue is generated and applied toward the cost of law enforcement”), aff'd, 171 A.D.2d 506, 567 N.Y.S.2d 603 (1st Dep’t 1991). III. The Role of the Fourteenth Amendment in Civil Forfeiture The government’s seizure and retention of property under civil forfeiture statutes, in the absence of a meaningful hearing at a meaningful time, raise serious due process concerns under the Fourteenth Amendment. See James Daniel Good Real Prop., 510 U.S. at 62, 114 S.Ct. 492 (<HOLDING>); Fuentes, 407 U.S. at 80, 92 S.Ct. 1983
holding that a predeprivation opportunity to be heard satisfies the due process clause holding that procedural due process requires adequate notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard holding that due process requires at a minimum an opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner recognizing that the essential requisites of procedural due process are notice and meaningful opportunity to be heard holding that absent exigent circumstances the due process clause requires the government to afford notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard before seizing real property subject to civil forfeiture