You are here: / Lien Law
,

ALTHOUGH THE SUBCONTRACTOR HAD THE RIGHT FILE A SECOND MECHANIC’S LIEN, THE ACTION TO FORECLSOE ON THE LIEN RAISED THE SAME ISSUES THAT WERE RAISED IN A PRIOR BREACH OF CONTRACT AND UNJUST ENRICHMENT ACTION WHICH WAS DISMISSED, THE RES JUDICATA DOCTRINE PRECLUDED THE SECOND ACTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the subcontractor’s action seeking to foreclose a mechanic’s lien was precluded by the doctrine of res judicata, despite its being based on theories different from those raised in the prior action:

“Under res judicata, or claim preclusion, a valid final judgment bars future actions between the same parties on the same cause of action” … . ” [O]nce a claim is brought to a final conclusion, all other claims arising out of the same transaction or series of transactions are barred, even if based upon different theories or if seeking a different remedy'” … . Accordingly, “a disposition on the merits bars litigation between the same parties, or those in privity with them, of a cause of action arising out of the same transaction or series of transactions as a cause of action that either was raised or could have been raised in the prior proceeding” … .

While a subcontractor may have the right to file a second mechanic’s lien within the statutory time period, at least to cure an irregularity in a lien first filed, or to reassert a lien when the prior one has been lost by delay in its enforcement …, a second mechanic’s lien is not immune from the doctrine of res judicata. Although the plaintiff framed its causes of action in the 2014 action as breach of contract and unjust enrichment causes of action, and its cause of action in this action as one to foreclose a mechanic’s lien, these are merely different theories for the plaintiff’s cause of action to recover monies allegedly owed to it under the subcontract. County Wide Flooring, Corp. v Town of Huntington, 2019 NY Slip Op 04354, Second Dept 6-5-19

 

/by
, , ,

NEITHER THE VICTIM WITNESS PROTECTION ACT NOR THE MANDATORY VICTIM RESTITUTION ACT PROVIDES A PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION FOR A JUDGMENT BASED SOLELY UPON RESTITUTION ORDERED IN A CRIMINAL CASE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Acosta, determined that neither the Victim Witness Protection Act (VWPA) nor the Mandatory Victim Restitution Act (MVRA) provided for a private right of action for a judgment based solely upon restitution ordered in a criminal case:

… [T]he VWPA makes civil remedies available to collect restitution but does not make restitution a civil judgment that can simply be enforced in a private suit … . Rather, a victim may pursue a civil action for damages in connection with the injuries that resulted in a restitution order, and the restitution order may provide assistance in proving liability, but the petitioner may not rely entirely on the restitution order and the amount ordered in the criminal action. Thus, the petitioner can separately plead and prove liability and damages under either a statutory or a common-law cause of action if the restitution order fails to satisfy the victim … . …

Some cases may support the conclusion that under the MVRA, a victim who has obtained a lien on property based on a restitution order may enforce that lien in a special court proceeding … . However, these cases provide no support for the conclusion that a victim may enforce the abstract judgment itself without obtaining a lien, especially given that this would contradict the language of 18 USC § 3664(m), explicitly requiring a lien. Petitioner has obtained an abstract of judgment, but never recorded it as a lien on defendant’s property or brought an action to enforce it. … [T]he MVRA does not provide a cause of action for a private victim to enforce an abstract judgment on a restitution order, which is exactly what petitioner is seeking to do. Therefore, petitioner has no standing under the MVRA. Matter of Mikhlov v Festinger, 2019 NY Slip Op 04046, First Dept 5-23-19

 

/by
,

COUNTERCLAIM ALLEGING PLAINTIFFS’ BREACH OF A HOME IMPROVEMENT CONTRACT WAS NOT VIABLE BECAUSE DEFENDANT CONTRACTORS DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE MECHANIC’S LIEN NOTICE REQUIREMENT OF GENERAL BUSINESS LAW 771, PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THEIR LIEN LAW CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined that defendants-contractors’ breach of contract counterclaim should have been dismissed because defendants did not provide the mechanic’s lien notice required by General Business Law 771 and summary judgment on plaintiffs’ Lien Law cause of action should have been granted. The action concerned home improvement work done by defendants. The notice failure did not preclude defendants’ recovery pursuant to quantum meruit:

… [P]laintiffs established that the contract at issue failed to comply with General Business Law § 771 inasmuch as it did not “contain the following notice to the owner in clear and conspicuous bold face type: Any contractor, subcontractor, or materialman who provides home improvement goods or services pursuant to your home improvement contract and who is not paid may have a valid legal claim against your property known as a mechanic’s lien’ ” … [The] failure “to enter into a signed written home improvement contract in conformity with General Business Law § 771 bars recovery based upon breach of contract” … . …

Plaintiffs met their initial burden [on their Line Law cause of action] … by establishing that … defendants possessed trust funds within the meaning of the Lien Law and failed to keep the records required by that statute. Lien Law § 75 (4) provides that the “[f]ailure of the trustee to keep the books or records required by th[at] section shall be presumptive evidence that the trustee has applied or consented to the application of trust funds actually received by him [or her] . . . for purposes other than a purpose of the trust as specified in section seventy-one of this chapter”  The evidence submitted by … defendants in opposition to the motion … supported the conclusion that they neglected to comply with the … .requirements of Lien Law § 75 … . Weiss v Zellar Homes, Ltd., 2019 NY Slip Op 01024, Fourth Dept 2-8-19

 

/by
, ,

BANK WAS ENTITLED TO A LIEN ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY PURSUANT TO THE DOCTRINE OF EQUITABLE SUBROGATION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, in this action to quiet title, determined that HSBC Bank was entitled to summary judgment on its counterclaim to impose an equitable lien on the subject property:

Under the doctrine of equitable subrogation, where the “premises of one person is used in discharging an obligation owed by another or a lien upon the premises of another, under such circumstances that the other would be unjustly enriched by the retention of the benefit thus conferred, the former is entitled to be subrogated to the position of the obligee or lien-holder” … .  …

[The] submissions established that HSBC, as assignee of the FA mortgage, which secured the loan proceeds used to satisfy the Berkshire mortgage, which secured the loan proceeds used to satisfy the plaintiff’s mortgage obligation to Ocwen, was entitled to be put in the place of Ocwen as holder of the mortgage lien in the sum of $207,566.25 … . Lombard v Yacoob, 2019 NY Slip Op 00427, Second Dept 1-23-19

 

/by
,

QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT THE TIMELINESS OF THE NOTICE OF LIEN, THE CHARACTER OF THE WORK AND EXAGGERATION PRECLUDED SUMMARY DISCHARGE OF THE NOTICE OF LIEN, SUPREME COURT REVERSED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the contractor’s notice of lien was valid on its face and should not have been summarily discharged because unresolved questions of fact required trial:

“A court has no inherent power to vacate or discharge a notice of lien except as authorized by Lien Law § 19 (6)” … . Pursuant to that provision, a court may summarily discharge a notice of lien where, among other things, “it appears from the face of the notice of lien that the claimant has no valid lien by reason of the character of the labor or materials furnished” or the notice was not timely filed … . …

“Because the lien was timely on its face, the court was not permitted to summarily discharge it on the basis of untimeliness” … . …

Petitioners attack the character of the labor furnished, asserting that respondent’s work in July 2016 was for a water line that was not part of any contract between the parties. This assertion merely “raises a factual issue as to the relationship of the last item of work to the parties’ contract … . …

“[A]lthough Lien Law § 39 provides that a willfully exaggerated lien is void, the issue of willful or fraudulent exaggeration is one that also ordinarily must be determined at the trial of [a lien] foreclosure action”  … . Matter of Beebe v Liebel, 2019 NY Slip Op 00337, Third Dept 1-17-19

 

/by

THE LIEN LAW DOES NOT PROVIDE THAT A TOWING COMPANY STORING A CAR PURSUANT TO A POLICE IMPOUND HAS THE RIGHT TO DEMAND A RELEASE FROM THE POLICE DEPARTMENT AND A HOLD HARMLESS AGREEMENT BEFORE RELEASING THE CAR, THE CAR SHOULD HAVE BEEN RELEASED WHEN PETITIONER FIRST REQUESTED IT, IN ADDITION, THE $50 A DAY STORAGE FEE IS EXCESSIVE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined respondent towing company, which was storing petitioner’s car pursuant to a police impound, did not have the authority to demand police approval for release of the car or a hold harmless agreement, and the $50 a day storage fee was excessive. The car should have been released when petitioner first requested it:

On October 29, 2016, respondent All County Towing and Recovery (hereinafter respondent) towed a vehicle to its facility at the direction of a local police department. On November 2, 2016, respondent mailed a notice to the registered owner of the vehicle and petitioner, a lienholder, advising that the vehicle was in its possession as a result of a police impound, that a lien was being asserted pursuant to Lien Law § 184, that storage fees were accruing in the amount of $50 per day and that, once the vehicle was released from police impound, it could be retrieved “upon full payment of all charges accrued” as of the date of release. That same day, petitioner offered to pay the fees then due in order to take possession of the vehicle, but respondent refused to surrender the vehicle unless petitioner obtained a release authorization from the local police department. Petitioner’s agent again attempted to recover the vehicle on November 7, 2016, and reported that respondent now demanded, in addition to a police release, the execution of a hold-harmless agreement in its favor. …

… [W]e conclude that nothing in Lien Law § 184 authorized respondent to condition the release of a vehicle upon the provision of a release authorization from law enforcement officials or the execution of a hold-harmless agreement in its favor … . …

… [W]e agree with Supreme Court that respondent’s $50 daily storage fee is unreasonable … . Matter of Ally Fin., Inc v All County Towing & Recovery, 2018 NY Slip Op 08223, Third Dept 11-29-18

LIEN LAW (CAR STORAGE, THE LIEN LAW DOES NOT PROVIDE THAT A TOWING COMPANY STORING A CAR PURSUANT TO A POLICE IMPOUND HAS THE RIGHT TO DEMAND A RELEASE FROM THE POLICE DEPARTMENT AND A HOLD HARMLESS AGREEMENT BEFORE RELEASING THE CAR, THE CAR SHOULD HAVE BEEN RELEASED WHEN PETITIONER FIRST REQUESTED IT, IN ADDITION, THE $50 A DAY STORAGE FEE IS EXCESSIVE (THIRD DEPT))/VEHICLE STORAGE (THE LIEN LAW DOES NOT PROVIDE THAT A TOWING COMPANY STORING A CAR PURSUANT TO A POLICE IMPOUND HAS THE RIGHT TO DEMAND A RELEASE FROM THE POLICE DEPARTMENT AND A HOLD HARMLESS AGREEMENT BEFORE RELEASING THE CAR, THE CAR SHOULD HAVE BEEN RELEASED WHEN PETITIONER FIRST REQUESTED IT, IN ADDITION, THE $50 A DAY STORAGE FEE IS EXCESSIVE (THIRD DEPT))

/by
,

LANDLORD, BY THE TERMS OF THE LEASE WHICH REQUIRED THE TENANT TO DO RENOVATION WORK, IS DEEMED TO HAVE CONSENTED TO THE WORK, THE CONTRACTOR THEREFORE HAD A VALID MECHANIC’S LIEN WITH RESPECT TO THE LANDLORD (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Wilson, determined the landlord (COR), by the terms of the lease which required work on the premises to be done by the tenant restaurant (Peaches), consented to the work. Therefore the contractor who did the work had a valid mechanic’s lien with respect to the landlord:

The language of the lease agreement not only expressly authorized Peaches to undertake the electrical work, but also required it to do so to effectuate the purpose of the lease—that is, for Peaches to open the restaurant for business and operate it continuously, seven days a week, during hours specified by COR. Furthermore, the detailed language makes clear that COR was to retain close supervision over the work and authorized it to exercise at least some direction over the work by reviewing, commenting on, revising, and granting ultimate approval for the design drawings related to the electrical work. We therefore conclude that, under our prior precedents, the terms of the lease agreement between COR and Peaches, taken together, are sufficient to establish COR’s consent under Lien Law § 3. Ferrara v Peaches Cafe LLC, 2018 NY Slip Op 07925, CtApp 11-20-18

LIEN LAW (LANDLORD, BY THE TERMS OF THE LEASE WHICH REQUIRED THE TENANT TO DO RENOVATION WORK, IS DEEMED TO HAVE CONSENTED TO THE WORK, THE CONTRACTOR THEREFORE HAD A VALID MECHANIC’S LIEN WITH RESPECT TO THE LANDLORD (CT APP))/LANDLORD-TENANT (LIEN LAW, (LANDLORD, BY THE TERMS OF THE LEASE WHICH REQUIRED THE TENANT TO DO RENOVATION WORK, IS DEEMED TO HAVE CONSENTED TO THE WORK, THE CONTRACTOR THEREFORE HAD A VALID MECHANIC’S LIEN WITH RESPECT TO THE LANDLORD (CT APP))/MECHANIC’S LIEN (LANDLORD-TENANT, LANDLORD, BY THE TERMS OF THE LEASE WHICH REQUIRED THE TENANT TO DO RENOVATION WORK, IS DEEMED TO HAVE CONSENTED TO THE WORK, THE CONTRACTOR THEREFORE HAD A VALID MECHANIC’S LIEN WITH RESPECT TO THE LANDLORD (CT APP))

/by
, , ,

PLAINTIFF CONTRACTOR DID NOT ALLEGE IT WAS LICENSED TO DO HOME IMPROVEMENT WORK IN ITS COMPLAINT ALLEGING BREACH OF CONTRACT AND SEEKING TO FORECLOSE ON A MECHANIC’S LIEN, THE COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendant general contractor’s motion to dismiss the complaint brought by plaintiff subcontractor, based upon the subcontractor’s failure to allege it was licensed to do home improvement work, should have been granted:

“Pursuant to CPLR 3015(e), a complaint that seeks to recover damages for breach of a home improvement contract or to recover in quantum meruit for home improvement services is subject to dismissal under CPLR 3211(a)(7) if it does not allege compliance with the licensing requirement” … . Moreover, a home improvement contractor who fails to possess and plead possession of a valid license as required by relevant laws may not commence an action to foreclose a mechanic’s lien … .

Here, the complaint did not allege that the plaintiff was duly licensed in the Town of East Hampton at the time the services were rendered … . Moreover, in opposition to the defendants’ motion, the plaintiff did not dispute that it did not possess the necessary license. The plaintiff’s contention that the work it performed was not for home improvement but, rather, was for the construction of a new home for which a home improvement contracting license was not necessary, is without merit. The Town Code defines “home improvement” as including, inter alia, “[n]ew home construction” … . Moreover, contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, the defendants are entitled to the protection of CPLR 3015(e) and the applicable licensing requirements … . Kristeel, Inc. v Seaview Dev. Corp., 2018 NY Slip Op 07296, Second Dept 10-31-18

CIVIL PROCEDURE (HOME IMPROVEMENT CONTRACTS, PLAINTIFF CONTRACTOR DID NOT ALLEGE IT WAS LICENSED TO DO HOME IMPROVEMENT WORK IN ITS COMPLAINT ALLEGING BREACH OF CONTRACT AND SEEKING TO FORECLOSE ON A MECHANIC’S LIEN, THE COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 3015 (HOME IMPROVEMENT CONTRACTS, PLAINTIFF CONTRACTOR DID NOT ALLEGE IT WAS LICENSED TO DO HOME IMPROVEMENT WORK IN ITS COMPLAINT ALLEGING BREACH OF CONTRACT AND SEEKING TO FORECLOSE ON A MECHANIC’S LIEN, THE COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT))/HOME IMPROVEMENT CONTRACTS (PLAINTIFF CONTRACTOR DID NOT ALLEGE IT WAS LICENSED TO DO HOME IMPROVEMENT WORK IN ITS COMPLAINT ALLEGING BREACH OF CONTRACT AND SEEKING TO FORECLOSE ON A MECHANIC’S LIEN, THE COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT))/CONTRACT LAW (HOME IMPROVEMENT CONTRACTS, PLAINTIFF CONTRACTOR DID NOT ALLEGE IT WAS LICENSED TO DO HOME IMPROVEMENT WORK IN ITS COMPLAINT ALLEGING BREACH OF CONTRACT AND SEEKING TO FORECLOSE ON A MECHANIC’S LIEN, THE COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT))/LIEN LAW (HOME IMPROVEMENT CONTRACTS, PLAINTIFF CONTRACTOR DID NOT ALLEGE IT WAS LICENSED TO DO HOME IMPROVEMENT WORK IN ITS COMPLAINT ALLEGING BREACH OF CONTRACT AND SEEKING TO FORECLOSE ON A MECHANIC’S LIEN, THE COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT))/MECHANIC’S LIENS (HOME IMPROVEMENT CONTRACTS, PLAINTIFF CONTRACTOR DID NOT ALLEGE IT WAS LICENSED TO DO HOME IMPROVEMENT WORK IN ITS COMPLAINT ALLEGING BREACH OF CONTRACT AND SEEKING TO FORECLOSE ON A MECHANIC’S LIEN, THE COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT))/MUNICIPAL LAW (LICENSES, HOME IMPROVEMENT CONTRACTS, PLAINTIFF CONTRACTOR DID NOT ALLEGE IT WAS LICENSED TO DO HOME IMPROVEMENT WORK IN ITS COMPLAINT ALLEGING BREACH OF CONTRACT AND SEEKING TO FORECLOSE ON A MECHANIC’S LIEN, THE COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT))/LICENSES  (HOME IMPROVEMENT CONTRACTS, PLAINTIFF CONTRACTOR DID NOT ALLEGE IT WAS LICENSED TO DO HOME IMPROVEMENT WORK IN ITS COMPLAINT ALLEGING BREACH OF CONTRACT AND SEEKING TO FORECLOSE ON A MECHANIC’S LIEN, THE COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT))

/by
, ,

SUPREME COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN PRECLUDING PLAINTIFF FROM PRESENTING EVIDENCE OF ITEMS ALLEGEDLY SOLD OR DAMAGED BY DEFENDANTS (OWNERS-OPERATORS OF A STORAGE UNIT) AS A SANCTION FOR PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGED SPOLIATION OF ITEMS IN THE STORAGE UNIT (SECOND DEPT).

In this Lien Law action, the Second Department determined Supreme Court improperly precluded the plaintiff from offering evidence of the value and condition of items allegedly sold or damaged by defendants, the owners/operators of a storage unit plaintiff had rented. Defendants allegedly mistakenly believed plaintiff had failed to pay the rental fees and held an auction. After plaintiff regained control of the unit, plaintiff disposed of most of the contents, despite defendants' requests to inspect the items:

Although the defendants demonstrated that the plaintiff disposed of the majority of the items remaining in the storage unit after he regained control and possession of the unit, the defendants failed to demonstrate that the plaintiff's conduct rose to the level of being intentional or willful … . …

Under the circumstances of this case, the appropriate sanction is to preclude evidence of the items disposed by the plaintiff that were not available for inspection by the defendants … . Heins v Public Stor., 2018 NY Slip Op 05919, Second Dept 8-29-18

CIVIL PROCEDURE (SPOLIATION, SUPREME COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN PRECLUDING PLAINTIFF FROM PRESENTING EVIDENCE OF ITEMS ALLEGEDLY SOLD OR DAMAGED BY DEFENDANTS (OWNERS-OPERATORS OF A STORAGE UNIT) AS A SANCTION FOR PLAINTIFF'S ALLEGED SPOLIATION OF ITEMS IN THE STORAGE UNIT (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (SPOLIATION, SUPREME COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN PRECLUDING PLAINTIFF FROM PRESENTING EVIDENCE OF ITEMS ALLEGEDLY SOLD OR DAMAGED BY DEFENDANTS (OWNERS-OPERATORS OF A STORAGE UNIT) AS A SANCTION FOR PLAINTIFF'S ALLEGED SPOLIATION OF ITEMS IN THE STORAGE UNIT (SECOND DEPT))/SPOLIATION (SUPREME COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN PRECLUDING PLAINTIFF FROM PRESENTING EVIDENCE OF ITEMS ALLEGEDLY SOLD OR DAMAGED BY DEFENDANTS (OWNERS-OPERATORS OF A STORAGE UNIT) AS A SANCTION FOR PLAINTIFF'S ALLEGED SPOLIATION OF ITEMS IN THE STORAGE UNIT (SECOND DEPT))/LIEN LAW (SPOLIATION, SUPREME COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN PRECLUDING PLAINTIFF FROM PRESENTING EVIDENCE OF ITEMS ALLEGEDLY SOLD OR DAMAGED BY DEFENDANTS (OWNERS-OPERATORS OF A STORAGE UNIT) AS A SANCTION FOR PLAINTIFF'S ALLEGED SPOLIATION OF ITEMS IN THE STORAGE UNIT (SECOND DEPT))

/by

NOTICE SENT TO THE OWNER AND LIENHOLDER OF A CAR BY THE TOW SERVICE WHICH WAS STORING THE CAR DID NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE LIEN LAW, THEREFORE THE STORAGE FEES COULD NOT BE COLLECTED BY THE TOW SERVICE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined the tow service’s notice to the owner and lienholder of a car that was towed and then stored did not comply with the Lien Law and, therefore, no storage fees were due to the tow service:

… [R]espondent’s purported lien for storage was invalid. Pursuant to Lien Law § 184 (5), where an entity seeks to assert a lien for the storage of a motor vehicle that it has towed and stored at the direction of a law enforcement agency, such entity must “mail by certified mail, return receipt requested, a notice . . . to every person who has perfected a security interest in such motor vehicle or who is listed as a lienholder upon the certificate of title . . . within [20] days of the first day of storage.” Under the statute, which must be strictly construed … , the “notice shall include the name of the [entity] providing storage of the motor vehicle, the amount being claimed for such storage, and [the] address and times at which the motor vehicle may be recovered”… . In addition, “[t]he notice shall also state that the [entity] providing such notice claims a lien on the motor vehicle and that such motor vehicle shall be released upon full payment of all storage charges accrued on the date the motor vehicle is released”… .

Here, the notice — which was mailed to petitioner by certified mail, return receipt requested — included respondent’s name, address and regular business hours, as well as the total amount being claimed for storage. The notice further stated that the vehicle would “be released to the owner thereof, or his or her lawfully designed [sic] representative upon full payment of all charges accrued to the date that the said motor vehicle is released.” Fatally, however, the notice did not state, as required, that respondent “claim[ed] a lien” on the vehicle … . The word “lien” does not appear in the notice at all. Moreover, we are not persuaded by respondent’s contention that the requirement was satisfied by the language indicating that the vehicle would be released “upon full payment of all charges.” Strictly construed, Lien Law § 184 (5) requires that the notice state both that respondent “claims a lien on the motor vehicle and that such motor vehicle shall be released upon full payment of all storage charges accrued on the date the motor vehicle is released” … . Matter of Nissan Motor Acceptance Corp v All County Towing, 2018 NY Slip Op 03583, Third Dept 5-17-18

​LIEN LAW (NOTICE SENT TO THE OWNER AND LIENHOLDER OF A CAR BY THE TOW SERVICE WHICH WAS STORING THE CAR DID NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE LIEN LAW, THEREFORE THE STORAGE FEES COULD NOT BE COLLECTED BY THE TOW SERVICE (THIRD DEPT))/TOWING SERVICE (LIEN LAW, NOTICE SENT TO THE OWNER AND LIENHOLDER OF A CAR BY THE TOW SERVICE WHICH WAS STORING THE CAR DID NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE LIEN LAW, THEREFORE THE STORAGE FEES COULD NOT BE COLLECTED BY THE TOW SERVICE (THIRD DEPT))/STORAGE FEES (TOWING SERVICE, LIEN LAW, NOTICE SENT TO THE OWNER AND LIENHOLDER OF A CAR BY THE TOW SERVICE WHICH WAS STORING THE CAR DID NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE LIEN LAW, THEREFORE THE STORAGE FEES COULD NOT BE COLLECTED BY THE TOW SERVICE (THIRD DEPT))

/by

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

Copyright © 2020 New York Appellate Digest, LLC
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy