—[*1] Tumelty & Spier, LLP, New York City (Michael J. Andrews of counsel), for appellant.

Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York City (Jane L. Gordon of counsel), for respondent.

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Martin Shulman, J.), entered October 31, 2006, which, in a civil forfeiture proceeding arising out of defendant's plea of guilty to driving while intoxicated (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192 [2]), granted plaintiff Property Clerk's motion for summary judgment, denied defendant's cross motion to compel disclosure, and adjudged the subject vehicle forfeited, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendant's argument that plaintiff is selectively enforcing the civil forfeiture statute against luxury vehicles in violation of equal protection is pure speculation that does not warrant disclosure or a hearing. We also reject defendant's argument that forfeiture of a 2002 BMW worth $20,000 to $27,000 for a crime that has a maximum fine of $1,000 is an unconstitutionally excessive penalty. "Given the gravity of the crime of drunk driving, it is difficult to imagine that forfeiture of an automobile for such a crime could ever be excessive" (County of Nassau v Canavan, 1 NY3d 134, 140 [2003]), certainly not here given defendant's plea of guilty to driving while impaired (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192 [1]) less than three years before his arrest in connection with the instant matter. Concur—Tom, J.P., Friedman, Nardelli, Catterson and Moskowitz, JJ.