Matter of Palisades Funding Corp. v. Joe’s Garage (2023)
Citation: App. Div. 3d Dept., No. 535733, 2023 NY Slip Op 05567 (full official PDF independently retrieved 2026-10-17). · Court: Appellate Division, Third Department · Decided: November 2, 2023 · Opinion: Clark, J.P. (Aarons, Reynolds Fitzgerald, Ceresia and Fisher, JJ., concurring).
Facts
On June 30, 2021 the State Police had Joe’s Garage, a towing and repair business licensed by the DMV, tow a damaged vehicle. The garage stored it in Binghamton at USD 75 per day. On September 14, 2021 it sent a “NOTICE OF LIEN AND SALE” by certified mail to the owner and to Palisades Funding, which held a lien on the vehicle. The notice claimed a garagekeeper’s lien of USD 4,160 for 47 days of storage and set a public auction for October 15, 2021. The garage published the sale notices. At the auction its owner was “the sole participant” and won the bid. He then “successfully obtained a new title which did not reflect petitioner’s lien” and resold the vehicle in December 2021. In February 2022 Palisades brought a combined Lien Law § 201-a proceeding, declaratory-judgment action and conversion action.
Holding
The court affirmed Supreme Court’s order declaring the garagekeeper’s lien void and holding that the lienholder could sue for conversion. Since the garage “failed to establish that it fulfilled the statutory requirements that would entitle it to a garagekeeper’s lien, Supreme Court properly declared the claimed lien void.”
Reasoning
- A towing garage 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” (Lien Law § 184(5)).
- The scheme gives the garage “the extrajudicial right to secure an interest over the property of another.” A garage claiming a lien therefore “bears the burden of establishing that it strictly complied with each and every requirement of the statute.”
- The later notice of lien and sale did not satisfy § 184(5). It omitted the “times at which the motor vehicle may be recovered” and was not sent with return receipt requested.
- Because no return receipt was requested, the 10-day period in Lien Law § 201-a “does not begin to run” until service is effected. The proceeding was therefore not time-barred.
- A lienholder with a security interest in the vehicle may sue for conversion.
Practical impact
- Buyers / operators: retitling did not defeat this lender’s conversion claim against the garage and its owner. The court affirmed conversion liability, with damages still to be developed; it did not order replevin against an innocent downstream purchaser or announce special scrutiny whenever only one person bids. Improper service meant the ten-day clock had not begun, rather than expired and reopened. VTL 2115(c) separately makes an involuntary-transfer title nonconclusive against old owners/lienholders.
- Owners / debtors and lienholders: the lienor bore the strict-compliance burden. Missing recovery times and return-receipt service mattered here. Current § 184(5) permits storage from mailing of compliant late notice; lateness alone is not universal lien invalidity.
Good-law status
Historical holding independently verified 2026-10-17; §§ 184/201/201-a were compared with current Senate text. The opinion cites Nissan and Oakes Towing (2015), not Bill’s Towing (2020). Actual subsequent history: the February 22, 2024 motion decision, No. 535733 denied reargument or alternatively leave to appeal. That denial is not a fresh merits affirmance or a complete history of every later proceeding. Comprehensive later treatment remains needs_verification; no unqualified good-law certification is made.
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.