Ford Motor Credit Co. v Izzo
Annotate this CaseDecided on September 23, 2004
City Court of Mount Vernon
FORD MOTOR CREDIT COMPANY, Petitioner,
against
JOSEPH IZZO, Individually, and DBA J&B BODY WORKS, Respondents.
2335-04
Solomon & Solomon, P.C., Attorneys for Petitioner, Columbia Circle, Box 15019, Albany, NY 12212-5019. Joseph G. Goubeaud, Jr. Esq., Attorney for Respondent, 22 West First Street, Suite 502, Mount Vernon, NY 10550
Adam Seiden, J.
The petitioner commenced this special proceeding pursuant to section 201-a of the Lien Law to determine the validity of a lien against it asserted by respondent on a 2002 LS Lincoln automobile presently in the respondent's possession. In its answer, respondent J&B Body Works asserts that it has a valid lien against the petitioner for repair work on the vehicle in question, as well as for storage fees incurred for 238 days of storage at respondent's garage. The respondent also argues that the vehicle's owner is a necessary party to this proceeding, and that Joseph Izzo was wrongly named as a respondent.
As stated in the petition, the owner of the vehicle, Antwane Reeves, brought the vehicle into the respondent J&B Body Works' garage in September 2003 for repair following a collision. He authorized an emergency repair on the vehicle, which fixed only a portion of the damage to the vehicle, at a cost of $1,675.24. Although further repairs were required, the owner did not authorize any further repairs, and never picked up the vehicle.
Seven months later, on April 5, 2004, the respondent J&B Body Works contacted petitioner Ford Motor Credit, the lienholder of the vehicle, advising it of the total of $8,130.99 due for the above noted repair, plus storage charges for the vehicle dating from September 2003. The petitioner does not dispute the lien for the repairs to the vehicle that were completed which totaled $1,675.24. However, petitioner does dispute the amount of the lien charges for storage fees, asserting that respondent is not entitled to storage fees since the repair estimate did not provide for such fees. Petitioner further claims that, in any event, it should have been notified the vehicle was being held in storage before seven months passed, and that the storage fees charged are excessive. As a preliminary matter, the respondent's motion to amend the caption to delete the name of Joseph Izzo, and to include the correct corporate defendant, Auto Body Builders, Inc. d/b/a J&B Body Works is granted without opposition.
Turning to the issue of the validity of the lien, section 184 of Lien Law states in relevant part: "A person keeping a garage...or place for the storage, maintenance, keeping or repair of [*2]motor vehicles...and who in connection therewith tows, stores, maintains, keeps or repairs any motor vehicle...at the request or consent of the owner...has a lien upon such motor vehicle...for the sum due for such towing, storing, maintaining, keeping or repairing of such vehicle...."
A special proceeding to determine the validity of a lien "may be brought in any court which would have jurisdiction to render a judgment for a sum equal to the amount of the lien" (Lien Law §201-a). As the full amount of the lien asserted here is $8,130.99, this Court has jurisdiction over this proceeding.
The Lien Law inures to the benefit of a garage owner who can establish the following elements: (1) the garage is the bailee of a motor vehicle; (2) it has performed garage services or stored the vehicle with the vehicle owner's consent; (3) there
was an agreed-upon price or, if no agreement on price had been reached, the
charges are reasonable for the services supplied; and (4) the garage is a duly registered motor vehicle repair shop as required under article 12-A of the Vehicle and Traffic Law (National Union Fire Ins.Co. v Eland Motor Car Company, Inc., 85 NY2d 725 (1995). The parties do not dispute that respondent J&B Body Works is a properly registered repair shop.
It is clear that the owner of the vehicle, Antwane Reeves, authorized the initial repair to the vehicle in September 2003. A contract signed by Reeves authorizing that repair is annexed to the respondent's answer. However, the contract signed by Reeves makes no reference to any storage charges, and no separate contract for storage charges has been submitted.
The right of a garageman to a lien for storage charges has been consistently held to be purely statutory, and must be strictly construed (Phillips v Catania, 155 AD2d 866 (4th Dept 1989)). "In the absence of a specific agreement, the repairman may not recover damages for storage" (Id; Gotham Credit Corp. v A.&H. Service Station, Inc., 120 NYS2d 749, 750 (App. Term 1st Dept 1953); Johnson v Drake's Automotive Corp., 4 Misc3d 1011A (Civ. Ct., Kings Co. 2004)).
Based upon the relevant case law, the respondent is precluded from recovering any damages for storage of the vehicle, as there was no contract providing for storage charges. It is the garageman's burden to establish that it has performed garage services or stored the vehicle with the vehicle owner's consent (National Union Fire Ins.Co. v Eland Motor Car Company, Inc., supra). However, the respondent has a valid lien for the amount of the repair work actually completed on the vehicle, which according to the parties' submissions totaled $1,675.24.
In view of the Court's determination that the respondent has no lien for storage charges, and the amount owed for actual repairs completed to the vehicle is not in dispute, the owner of the vehicle need not be made a party to this proceeding to determine the validity of the lien.
The above constitutes the Decision and Order of the Court.
The Court considered the following papers on this motion: Petition dated June 7, 2004, Verified Petition, Exhibits. Verified Answer dated July 29, 2004, Exhibits, Memorandum of Law in Opposition. Affirmation in Reply dated August 2, 2004.
Dated:September 23, 2004
Mount Vernon, New York [*3]
_______________________
HON. ADAM SEIDEN
Associate City Judge of Mount Vernon
Solomon & Solomon, P.C., Attorneys for Petitioner, Columbia Circle, Box 15019, Albany, NY 12212-5019. Joseph G. Goubeaud, Jr. Esq., Attorney for Respondent, 22 West First Street, Suite 502, Mount Vernon, NY 10550
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
