Opinion
031277/04.
Decided July 15, 2004.
This matter was tried to completion on June 15, 2004. After the close of Plaintiff's case the Court granted Defendant's motion to dismiss on the basis that Plaintiff had failed to prove his prima facie case. Plaintiff had initially asserted a claim for damage to his car. He later moved to increase the amount sued for to $25,000 based upon a claim for fraud and misrepresentation. That motion was referred to the trial judge. The Court at trial gave Plaintiff every opportunity to prove a claim against Defendants on any theory. Although Plaintiff asserted at trial that Defendants had "sabotaged" his car for a higher insurance recovery, no proof of this claim was submitted. Accordingly, the motion to dismiss was granted.
The Court then tried Defendant's counterclaim. Defendant's had counterclaimed for repairs they made to Plaintiff's car based on an account stated and for storage costs.
On November 28, 2000, Plaintiff authorized Defendant to repair his motor vehicle. On December 22, 2000 the repairs were completed. Plaintiff received a check from his insurance carrier, but did not pay Defendant for the services rendered, nor did he negotiate the check. Defendant filed two Notices of Lien and Sale pursuant to § 184 and § 201 of the New York Lien Law. These two notices contain unexplained contradictions. The first notice claims $5,123.67 for parts, labor and storage, and storage charges from January 13, 2001 to the date of payment or sale. This notice contains a clause that reads, "Storage will continue at $35 a day." The second notice claims $5,948.67 for parts, labor and storage, and storage charges from February 15, 2001 to the date of payment or sale.
The aggregate amount of a mechanic or garageman's lien must not exceed the amount which the owner would be otherwise liable to pay at the time of the filing of the claim. Gibson v. Lenane, 94 N.Y. 183, 186 (1883), Heckmann v. Pinkney, 81 N.Y. 211, 217 (1880). If labor is performed or materials are furnished, the lien shall not be for a sum greater than the sum earned and unpaid on the contract at the time of filing the notice of lien. In no case shall the owner be liable to pay a sum greater than the value or agreed price of the labor and materials remaining unpaid at the time of filing notice of lien. Umbaugh Builders, Inc. v. Parr Company of Suffolk, 385 N.Y.S.2d 698, 700 (Sup.Ct. Suffolk Co. 1976), The Upton Company v. Flynn, 154 N.Y.S. 725, 727 (4th Dept. 1915). Here, the first lien states that "Storage will continue at $35 a day." However, the amount claimed by a lien must not be permitted to continually increase. The amount of the lien must not exceed the amount which the owner of the automobile would be liable to pay at the time of the filing of the claim. The second lien claims a fixed storage cost: past storage of $1,295 and costs from February 15, 2001 until March 13, 2001 at $35 a day for $935. The amount of the lien included storage costs only until March 13, 2001, the day of the sale at public auction. Lien Law § 184(1) provides a person keeping a garage with the right to include storage costs in the lien. The total amount of the lien is $6,883.67. Accordingly, the storage costs from December 22, 2000 until June 15, 2004 that the Plaintiff seeks to recover on their counterclaim is not included in either of the liens.
The right of a garageman to a lien for storage charges is purely statutory and must be strictly construed. Phillips v. Catania, 547 N.Y.S.2d 476, 477 (4th Dept. 1989). The contractual remedy of a garageman, if any, is concurrent with his remedy under the Lien Law, and a garageman may recover damages for storage on proof of an agreement to pay storage charges. Express Freight Systems, Inc. v. Walter, 632 N.Y.S.2d 733 (4th Dept. 1995). In the absence of a specific agreement, the repairman may not recover charges for storage. Gotham Credit Corp. v. A. H. Service Station, Inc., 120 N.Y.S.2d 749, 750 (1st Dept. 1953), Phillips 547 N.Y.S.2d at 477. Here, Defendant contends that they provided Plaintiff with written notice that he would be responsible for storage charges of $35 a day while his automobile was kept on Defendant's premises. At trial Plaintiff denied ever seeing the document, and it was not signed by Plaintiff. Weighing the credibility of the witness, this court finds that Plaintiff did not agree to pay and did not have notice of the storage charges. As there is no agreement between the parties to pay storage fees, Defendant may not recover charges for storage of Plaintiff's vehicle for the period beyond March 13, 2001. This court awards Defendant $6,883.67, the amount of the most recent lien.
This constitutes the Decision and Order of this Court.