Seaforth v. Public Storage Management, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Seaforth v. Public Storage Management, Inc.

288 A.D.2d 368, 733 N.Y.S.2d 228, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11250

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

DecidedNovember 19, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 288 A.D.2d 368 (Seaforth v. Public Storage Management, Inc.) 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

Seaforth v. Public Storage Management, Inc., 288 A.D.2d 368, 733 N.Y.S.2d 228, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11250 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract and violation of the Lien Law, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Pincus, J.), dated August 9, 2000, which, upon renewal, granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and denied his cross motion to strike their answer.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendants’ motion for summary judgment was properly granted upon renewal. The defendants established, through documentary evidence as well as by affidavits from persons with knowledge, that in December 1993 the plaintiff stored certain personal property in their self-service storage facility pursuant to a written agreement. The agreement recited that if the plaintiff defaulted in his rental payments, the defendants would have the right to sell his property, in accordance with the Lien Law. The plaintiff was to notify the defendants in writing if he changed his address. The plaintiff admitted at his deposition that he defaulted on his rent for February and March 1995, and that he moved without notifying the defendants in writing of his new address. In strict accordance with the Lien Law, the defendants tried three times without success to serve the plaintiff with a default notice by certified mail, return receipt requested. Thereafter, they twice noticed a public sale in Newsday, and on April 25, 1995, at the time and location advertised, the defendants sold the plaintiff’s goods to the highest bidder at a public auction.

The defendants demonstrated their compliance with the Lien Law, including its notice requirements, in every respect (see, Goldberg v Manhattan Mini Stor. Corp., 225 AD2d 408). In opposition, the plaintiff cited only trivial irregularities in the defendants’ paperwork, and failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see, CPLR 2001, 3026; Goldman Bros, v Forester, 62 Misc 2d 812).

The plaintiff’s remaining contentions are without merit. Santucci, J. P., S. Miller, Luciano and Smith, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract and violation of the Lien Law, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Pincus, J.), dated August 9, 2000, which, upon renewal, granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and denied his cross motion to strike their answer.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendants’ motion for summary judgment was properly granted upon renewal. The defendants established, through documentary evidence as well as by affidavits from persons with knowledge, that in December 1993 the plaintiff stored certain personal property in their self-service storage facility pursuant to a written agreement. The agreement recited that if the plaintiff defaulted in his rental payments, the defendants would have the right to sell his property, in accordance with the Lien Law. The plaintiff was to notify the defendants in writing if he changed his address. The plaintiff admitted at his deposition that he defaulted on his rent for February and March 1995, and that he moved without notifying the defendants in writing of his new address. In strict accordance with the Lien Law, the defendants tried three times without success to serve the plaintiff with a default notice by certified mail, return receipt requested. Thereafter, they twice noticed a public sale in Newsday, and on April 25, 1995, at the time and location advertised, the defendants sold the plaintiff’s goods to the highest bidder at a public auction.

The defendants demonstrated their compliance with the Lien Law, including its notice requirements, in every respect (see, Goldberg v Manhattan Mini Stor. Corp., 225 AD2d 408). In opposition, the plaintiff cited only trivial irregularities in the defendants’ paperwork, and failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see, CPLR 2001, 3026; Goldman Bros, v Forester, 62 Misc 2d 812).

The plaintiff’s remaining contentions are without merit. Santucci, J. P., S. Miller, Luciano and Smith, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

288 A.D.2d 368, 733 N.Y.S.2d 228, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11250, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/seaforth-v-public-storage-management-inc-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack