Morgan & Brother Manhattan Storage Co. v. McGuire

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Morgan & Brother Manhattan Storage Co. v. McGuire

151 A.D.2d 306, 542 N.Y.S.2d 575, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7877

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJune 15, 1989

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 151 A.D.2d 306 (Morgan & Brother Manhattan Storage Co. v. McGuire) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Morgan & Brother Manhattan Storage Co. v. McGuire, 151 A.D.2d 306, 542 N.Y.S.2d 575, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7877 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment of Supreme Court, New York County (Hortense Gabel, J.), entered on August 5, 1987, which, after a bench trial, declared, inter alia, that plaintiff-appellant, as a warehouseman under the Uniform Commercial Code and the General Business Law, cannot claim the rights of a finder under the Personal Property Law, and is limited to recovery of unpaid storage charges, unanimously modified on the law and the facts, and to the extent of remanding for a hearing to determine the amount of appellant’s lien for unpaid storage charges, without costs, and otherwise affirmed.

This action involves the rights to the remaining amounts of currency that had been contained in an unclaimed storage trunk deposited with appellant. Dishonest employees of appellant had looted the trunk and also destroyed all internal records that would have shown when the trunk was initially left with the appellant storage company. After a police investigation, substantial sums were recovered from the larcenous employees.

While we agree with the holdings of the IAS court that the appellant warehouseman cannot claim the rights of a finder and is limited to recovery of its lien for unpaid storage fees, [307]*307we disagree with the statement in the court’s memorandum decision that the claim for accrued storage fees had to be dismissed for failure to state a prima facie case. (The judgment does not reflect this directive.) The court’s reasoning was that due to the theft by its employees of all internal records with respect to the storage of the trunk, appellant was unable to prove how long the trunk was in its possession in order to assess the amount of accrued charges. The record shows that the bulk of the currency recovered dates from 1928, although certain bills bear a later date. We are of the opinion that the court should not have foreclosed the claim but should have granted an evidentiary hearing to afford appellant an opportunity to establish the amount of the lien. We remand for that purpose. Concur — Murphy, P. J., Asch, Rosenberger, Smith and Rubin, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Judgment of Supreme Court, New York County (Hortense Gabel, J.), entered on August 5, 1987, which, after a bench trial, declared, inter alia, that plaintiff-appellant, as a warehouseman under the Uniform Commercial Code and the General Business Law, cannot claim the rights of a finder under the Personal Property Law, and is limited to recovery of unpaid storage charges, unanimously modified on the law and the facts, and to the extent of remanding for a hearing to determine the amount of appellant’s lien for unpaid storage charges, without costs, and otherwise affirmed.

This action involves the rights to the remaining amounts of currency that had been contained in an unclaimed storage trunk deposited with appellant. Dishonest employees of appellant had looted the trunk and also destroyed all internal records that would have shown when the trunk was initially left with the appellant storage company. After a police investigation, substantial sums were recovered from the larcenous employees.

While we agree with the holdings of the IAS court that the appellant warehouseman cannot claim the rights of a finder and is limited to recovery of its lien for unpaid storage fees, [307]*307we disagree with the statement in the court’s memorandum decision that the claim for accrued storage fees had to be dismissed for failure to state a prima facie case. (The judgment does not reflect this directive.) The court’s reasoning was that due to the theft by its employees of all internal records with respect to the storage of the trunk, appellant was unable to prove how long the trunk was in its possession in order to assess the amount of accrued charges. The record shows that the bulk of the currency recovered dates from 1928, although certain bills bear a later date. We are of the opinion that the court should not have foreclosed the claim but should have granted an evidentiary hearing to afford appellant an opportunity to establish the amount of the lien. We remand for that purpose. Concur — Murphy, P. J., Asch, Rosenberger, Smith and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

151 A.D.2d 306, 542 N.Y.S.2d 575, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7877, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/morgan-brother-manhattan-storage-co-v-mcguire-nyappdiv-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack