PETITIONER, THE OWNER OF A LEASED CAR DAMAGED IN AN ACCIDENT, SOUGHT A DECLARATION THAT THE RESPONDENT REPAIR SHOP’S GARAGEKEEPER’S LIEN WAS NULL AND VOID ALLEGING IT DID NOT AUTHORIZE THE REPAIR; ALTHOUGH THE NOTICE OF THE SALE TO PAY OFF THE LIEN DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE LIEN LAW, THE PETITION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED BASED UPON EVIDENCE SUBMITTED IN SURREPLY (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the petition, brought by the owner of a leased vehicle damaged in an accident, seeking a declaration that the respondent repair shop’s garagekeeper’s lien was null and void because it did not authorize the repair, should not have been granted. Although the notice of the sale to pay off the lien did not comply with the Lien Law, evidence submitted by the petitioner in suureply should not have been considered. Therefore the petition should not have been granted on the merits and respondent repair shop should have been allowed to submit an answer:

Accepting that respondent attempted “with due diligence” to personally serve the notice upon petitioners within the county where the lien arose, however, the notice was not sent via “certified mail, return receipt requested, and by first-class mail” as required to accomplish service under Lien Law § 201 … . Those service requirements are meant “to insure that [owners] have an adequate opportunity to reclaim their vehicles” … and, inasmuch as a garagekeeper’s lien is a statutory creation in derogation of common law, the failure to comply with them renders service defective … . Accordingly, in view of respondent’s failure to serve the notice in the manner required by the Lien Law, the time in which to commence this proceeding challenging the lien never began to run … . …

Supreme Court did abuse its discretion, however, in rebuffing respondent’s request to serve an answer and instead granting the petition on the merits. There was nothing to show that respondent was not a registered repair shop during the relevant period, and respondent asked petitioners to review a vehicle lease agreement that it believed conferred actual authority upon [the lessee] to authorize repairs on [petitioner’s] behalf … .  Petitioners instead provided that agreement for the first time in their surreply papers, a belated attempt to introduce new factual information to which respondent could not respond and that should have been rejected … . Matter of Daimler Trust v R&W Auto Body, Inc., 2020 NY Slip Op 06187, Third Dept 10-29-20