Home/New York Court of Appeals/Svendsen v. Smith's Moving & Trucking Co.

Svendsen v. Smith's Moving & Trucking Co.

429 N.E.2d 411, 54 N.Y.2d 865, 32 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. (West) 275, 444 N.Y.S.2d 904, 1981 N.Y. LEXIS 3080
CourtNew York Court of Appeals
DecidedOctober 13, 1981
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 429 N.E.2d 411 (Svendsen v. Smith's Moving & Trucking Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Svendsen v. Smith's Moving & Trucking Co., 429 N.E.2d 411, 54 N.Y.2d 865, 32 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. (West) 275, 444 N.Y.S.2d 904, 1981 N.Y. LEXIS 3080 (N.Y. 1981).

Opinions

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs, for the reasons stated in the Per Curiam opinion of that court (76 AD2d 504). In response to appellant’s arguments advanced before us, we add the following observations : (1) the mandate of the due process clause of the New York State Constitution (art I, § 6), because it is a constitutional provision, takes precedence over the uniformity provision of the Uniform Commercial Code (§ 1-102, subd [2], par [c]); (2) the 1980 amendment of article 9 of the Lien Law in an effort to correct the constitutional infirmity in the garagemen’s lien which we recognized in Sharrock v Dell Buick-Cadillac, (45 NY2d 152) is irrelevant to the issue of the present case, because article 9 specifically excepts from its provisions the lien of a warehouseman under the Uniform Commercial Code and no similar legislative [868]*868amendment with respect to the latter lien has been enacted; and (3) the 1979 enactment of the Truth-In-Storage Act (General Business Law, art 29-1), if it be applicable at all to the instant noncontractual situation, does not proscribe the summary non judicial sale permitted by section 7-210 of the Uniform Commercial Code which under the reasoning of Sharrock is clearly unconstitutional.

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

Related

Baskin v. MABCO Tr., Inc.
2019 NY Slip Op 7827 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2019)
Shimamoto v. S&F Warehouses, Inc.
783 N.E.2d 484 (New York Court of Appeals, 2002)
Ellison v. Midtown Moving & Storage, Inc.
188 Misc. 2d 703 (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)
Southcenter Joint Venture v. National Democratic Policy Committee
780 P.2d 1282 (Washington Supreme Court, 1989)
Henderson v. Holley
112 A.D.2d 190 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1985)
Dupont v. Joedon & Co.
107 A.D.2d 369 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1985)
Jefferds v. Ellis
127 Misc. 2d 477 (New York Supreme Court, 1985)
Citibank, N.A. v. Benkoczy
561 F. Supp. 184 (S.D. Florida, 1983)
Collins v. Steisel
89 A.D.2d 855 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1982)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
429 N.E.2d 411, 54 N.Y.2d 865, 32 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. (West) 275, 444 N.Y.S.2d 904, 1981 N.Y. LEXIS 3080, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/svendsen-v-smiths-moving-trucking-co-ny-1981.