one of the parcels (Lot 56) was used for criminal activity and thus only that parcel is subject to forfeiture; (2) the forfeiture of property valued at nearly $70,000 for drug sales totaling only $8,250 constitutes an excessive fine in violation of the Eighth Amendment; and (3) an action for the forfeiture of his property, after having been tried on the underlying drug offenses in state court, would constitute double jeopardy in violation of the Fifth Amendment. The Government moved for summary judgment. The district court granted the motion as to Lot 56, but held that the Government had not shown a substantial connection between Lot 1 and the criminal activity and therefore denied the motion as to that parce ircuit. See United States v. 19 & 25 Castle St., 31 F.3d 35, 41 (2d Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>). The question is one of first impression in
holding that a cause of action for damages to property resulting from a permanent nuisance accrues to the owner of the land at the time the injury begins to affect the land and mere transfer of the land by deed does not transfer the claim for damages holding that in action by property owner to recover land taken by eminent domain current titleholder to land might be necessary party if district court were to restore land to plaintiff holding that parcels of property separately described in the local land records whether or not conveyed to an owner by a single instrument should be considered separately for forfeiture purposes except in certain unusual circumstances holding that scope of property subject to forfeiture is defined by the instrument creating an interest in the property holding that the owner of the land could not bring a 93a action against a prior owner of the land who was not the seller because there was no business connection between the two parties