Matter of Nissan Motor Acceptance Corp. v. All County Towing (2018)
Citation: 161 AD3d 1423. That reporter citation is as cited in the Third Department’s later opinion in palisades-funding-v-joes-garage-2023; the opinion itself was retrieved as App. Div. No. 525390. · Court: Appellate Division, Third Department · Decided: May 17, 2018 · Opinion: Clark, J. (McCarthy, J.P., Mulvey, Aarons and Rumsey, JJ., concurring).
Facts
On December 22, 2015, at law enforcement’s direction, All County Towing towed a vehicle to its facility. It mailed a notice, certified with return receipt requested, to the owner and to Nissan as lienholder. The notice said storage fees were accruing and the vehicle could be retrieved “upon full payment of all charges accrued.” Nissan brought a Lien Law § 201-a proceeding. The vehicle was released on a USD 10,000 bond. The tower claimed USD 6,501.51, including USD 200 for towing and USD 5,750 for 115 days of storage. Supreme Court held the storage lien invalid and upheld only the USD 200 towing lien.
Holding
The court affirmed. Because the notice “failed to state that respondent claimed a lien on the vehicle,” the tower “failed to comply with all of the essential statutory requirements of Lien Law § 184 (5).” The storage lien was invalid. The towing lien survived.
Reasoning
- Lien Law § 184(5) “must be strictly construed.”
- The notice must state both that the tower “claims a lien on the motor vehicle” and that the vehicle “shall be released upon full payment of all storage charges.” The word “lien” did not appear anywhere in the notice, and release-on-payment language did not substitute for it.
- Under § 184(5), “[a] failure to mail such notice in a timely fashion shall not affect a lien for towing.” That is why the USD 200 towing charge stood.
Practical impact
- Buyers / operators: on this record the omission of any lien claim invalidated storage, not towing. No auction or downstream purchaser’s title was adjudicated. Mere lateness differs: current § 184(5) allows storage from mailing of compliant late notice; this opinion does not erase that statutory saving provision.
- Owners / debtors and lienholders: a bond can free the vehicle while the § 201-a proceeding decides the lien amount.
Good-law status
Historical holding independently verified 2026-10-17 against the full official opinion; current § 184(5) retains the material lien-claim/content requirement. Actual later treatment: palisades-funding-v-joes-garage-2023 cites it, as does Matter of Cabrera v New York Collision Auto Repair Inc., 2026 NY Slip Op 50178(U) (Sup Ct, Richmond County, Jan. 21, 2026), a different return-receipt defect/renewal ruling. Those full opinions were retrieved; neither is comprehensive subsequent-history or citator clearance. That broader status remains needs_verification.
Applies in →
new-york · towing-storage-and-mechanics-lien-sales · motor-vehicles
Disclaimer. This page is legal information, not legal advice. It summarizes a court decision that may have been limited or distinguished by later authority. Nothing here creates an attorney-client relationship. Read the full opinion and consult a licensed attorney before acting.