§ 7105.Sale of perishable property.
Article 71. Recovery of Chattel · Last amended 1963 · Last verified July 21, 2026
Full Text of CPLR 7105
Plain-English Summary
Not everything a sheriff seizes can wait out a lawsuit in storage. Food, livestock, and other property that will spoil or lose its value need a faster answer than the case timeline allows, and section 7105 supplies one: on motion, with whatever notice the court requires, the court can order the sheriff to sell perishable seized property instead of holding it.
The court controls the sale itself, setting the time, place, and manner of the sale and how notice of it must be given, so the process stays supervised instead of being left to the sheriff's own judgment. Once the sale happens, the sheriff deducts fees and necessary expenses and pays the balance into court, where it sits in place of the chattel until the action is resolved and the judgment says who gets it.
Frequently Asked Questions
What happens if the seized property is perishable, like food or livestock?
A party can move to have the court order the sheriff to sell it under CPLR 7105, instead of letting it spoil or lose value while the case is pending. The court sets the terms of the sale.
Who decides when and how perishable seized property gets sold?
The court does. It sets the time, place, and manner of the sale and prescribes what notice must be given, instead of leaving those decisions to the sheriff alone.
What happens to the money from the sale of perishable seized property?
The sheriff deducts fees and necessary expenses and pays the rest into court, where it is held until the action is decided. The proceeds effectively stand in for the chattel in the eventual judgment.
Do I need to give notice before asking a New York court to sell perishable seized property?
Yes, whatever notice the court requires when the motion is made. Section 7105 leaves the amount and form of that notice to the court's discretion based on the circumstances.
Can the sheriff sell perishable property without a court order first?
No. CPLR 7105 requires a motion, and the sale can only go forward once the court orders it and sets the terms.
Advisory Committee Notes
This section is derived from CPA § 1102. Under former law, the motion to order a sale might have been made with or without notice, except in the case of live animals, where notice must have been given. Under this section, however, the court is given discretion as to notice in all cases. The motion may be brought on by an order to show cause, returnable in a matter of hours, if necessary, where the property is so perishable that great loss may ensue unless extremely fast action is taken. In such a case, an auction may be impracticable and the court is also given discretion to set the method of sale. See § 2702.
Under former law, if perishable property replevied from the defendant was sold pursuant to order, the proceeds of the sale were turned over to the person entitled to possession pending judgment in the action. After the sale of the replevied property, the parties stood in the same position as any other plaintiff and defendant litigating a claim to a liquidated sum of money. The plaintiff cannot with merit claim that he will suffer great hardship if he is deprived of this sum of money pendente lite, any more than any creditor can demand a deposit from his debtor pending the outcome of their action for a sum of money. This section provides that, subject to other order of the court, proceeds of the sale shall be paid into court, to be held pending determination of the action. In effect, such a provision means that when perishable property is sold by the sheriff after a seizure, the subsequent proceedings are conducted in the same manner as in any other action for a sum of money, the sole difference being that an amount which secures the judgment has been paid into court.
The judgment should not be entered for the fair market value of the chattel at the time of the trial; rather it should be for the amount received as proceeds upon the sale of the chattel. Since the plaintiff caused the sale and the necessity therefor by his seizure of the property, and since the defendant had the power to reclaim the property before sale, neither should be permitted to demand more than the amount for which the property was sold.
The reference to a vessel in the first sentence of CPA § 1102 is omitted as unnecessary. See introduction to article 62.
Amendment History
Add, L 1962, ch 308, eff Sept 1, 1963.