In Property Clerk v. Molomo, 179 A.D.2d 210 (1st Dept., 1992), the Appellate Division, First Department established that a lienholder is "merely entitled to satisfy its lien from the proceeds of the property after the forfeiture has been adjudicated against the guilty party." 179 A.D.2d at 212, 583 N.Y.S.2d at 252. Simply put, the issue to be determined is whether the term "proceeds" refers to the gross proceeds received from the auction up to the full amount of the lien, or to net proceeds, the gross amount of the proceeds received less expenses incurred, or in this instance, the deduction of a 10% administrative fee. In Molomo, The First Department emphasized that a lienholder is not an owner of a vehicle: "nor should Ford's status as a lienholder, not an owner, be glossed over." Id. at 213. Vehicle and Traffic Law 128 defines an owner as "a person, other than a lienholder, having the property in or title to a vehicle or vessel." Obviously, the difference between a lienholder and an owner is not merely one of semantics and different rights and liabilities attach to each. For example, although in civil forfeiture actions an owner must be a defendant in the action and a lienholder has no such right, an owner can be held vicariously liable for the negligent actions of a driver of its vehicle, while a lienholder bears no such liability. See, Vehicle and Traffic Law 388. In detailing the circumstance surrounding the forfeiture action in Molomo, the Appellate Division, First Department noted that "the Property Clerk plans to sell the vehicle at auction and retain 10% of the proceeds for its administrative expenses and remit the remainder to [the lienholder]." Molomo at 212.In Molomo at 214, the Appellate Division, First Department also noted that lienholders are not without the means to protect against the risks associated with the civil forfeiture of vehicle in which they maintain a security interest: "Whatever other steps a lienor might take to protect its interests from loss, e.g., the retail installment contract herein required the buyer to insure the vehicle and gave him the option of credit life and credit disability insurance, [a lienor]could conceivably insure itself for any loss it might sustain in the event the buyer violated a law thus triggering the seizure and forfeiture provisions of the Administrative Code." "Harsh as forfeiture may seem, the risks inherent in (the lienholder's] position as a secured creditor are no greater in this instance, where the value of its lien is diminished by the unlawful conduct of its debtor, then they would be in the event its debtor violated the retail installment agreement by failing to obtain the required insurance and the vehicle was stolen or destroyed. Moreover, in practical terms, the only real difference in effect in the present matter is the 10% administrative fee."