Torres v. Colombia/Colombio Towing

2026 NY Slip Op 50117(U)
CourtCivil Court Of The City Of New York, Bronx County
DecidedFebruary 3, 2026
DocketIndex No. SC-001047-25/BX
StatusUnpublished
AuthorDawn Guglielmo

This text of 2026 NY Slip Op 50117(U) (Torres v. Colombia/Colombio Towing) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Civil Court Of The City Of New York, Bronx County primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Torres v. Colombia/Colombio Towing, 2026 NY Slip Op 50117(U) (N.Y. Super. Ct. 2026).

Opinion

Torres v Colombia/Colombio Towing (2026 NY Slip Op 50117(U)) [*1]
Torres v Colombia/Colombio Towing
2026 NY Slip Op 50117(U)
Decided on February 3, 2026
Civil Court Of The City Of New York, Bronx County
Guglielmo, J.
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.


Decided on February 3, 2026
Civil Court of the City of New York, Bronx County


Jason Torres, Claimant,

against

Colombia/Colombio Towing and BRONX JUNK CAR DEPOT, Defendant(s).




Index No. SC-001047-25/BX

Dawn Guglielmo, J.

On December 4, 2025, the Court held a bench trial in this small claims action in accordance with the Court Notice dated August 21, 2025. Claimant, Jason Torres (hereinafter "claimant"), appearing self-represented, presented documentary evidence and testified in support of his claim against defendants, Colombia/Colombio Towing and Bronx Junk Car Depot (hereinafter "Columbia Towing;" Bronx Junk Depot;" or collectively as "defendants"), to recover a sum of $2,800.00 as against each defendant for damages caused to claimant's automobile with interest.[FN1] Defendants, who also appeared self-represented, submitted documentary evidence and presented testimony from the owner of Columbia Towing, Ruben Dario Martinez, and a manager of Bronx Junk Depot, Norman Siegel, in defense to claimant's complaint (hereinafter "Mr. Martinez" and "Mr. Siegel," respectively).[FN2]

Upon due deliberation and consideration of the allegations, testimony and evidence, [*2]claimant's action is decided as follows, for the reasons stated below.

Claimant testified that his vehicle, a distinctive red 1990 Honda Civic, was discovered missing from where he parked it the night before, on Soundview Avenue, on the morning of May 14, 2025; that he reported said vehicle stolen at 9 a.m. on that same day; and that he asked many of his friends in the area to see if they had seen his vehicle after he realized it had been stolen. Claimant also testified that his stolen vehicle was brought to Columbia Towing by the thieves; that he knows this because he called Columbia Towing after a relative who works in the towing industry recognized claimant's car and defendant's distinctive tow truck with said vehicle thereon; that Columbia Towing towed his stolen vehicle to Bronx Junk Depot; and that claimant received a video from Columbia Towing. Claimant further testified that when he called Columbia Towing, an employee admitted that Columbia Towing received his vehicle and towed it to Bronx Junk Depot; that he was further told the thieves stripped his vehicle of "what they wanted" inside Columbia Towing's facility and then took the vehicle for destruction at Bronx Junk Depot. Claimant then presented documentary evidence, to wit, color photographs depicting a tan Saturn with Virginia state license plate no. TST-2616, which claimant testified, according to an employee of Columbia Towing, was the vehicle driven by two of the individuals who took claimant's stolen vehicle to Columbia Towing at 997 Prospect Avenue; photos of those two individuals; a photo of one individual in a tank top who drove claimant's stolen vehicle to Columbia Towing's location; photos of claimant's 1990 red Honda Civic being towed from Columbia Towing's location; a photo of the passport of Richard Michael Castro which identification was provided to Columbia Towing to tow the vehicle to Bronx Junk Depot; and a photo of claimant's crushed red vehicle (collectively marked as claimant's 1).[FN3] Claimant further testified that he looked up the "blue book value" of the year, make, and model of his destroyed vehicle and it was $2,800.00. Claimant further testified that no title or keys were given to Columbia Towing or Bronx Junk Depot for said vehicle as claimant still possesses the keys; and that neither Columbia Towing nor Bronx Junk Depot checked the Vehicle Identification Number to see whether the car had been reported stolen before having said vehicle destroyed.

On behalf of Columbia Towing, Mr. Martinez corroborated portions of claimant's testimony and testified that a passport was presented by that individual in order to "junk the vehicle;" that said vehicle was driven to his business; that the individual wearing the hat, as depicted in the photos, arrived with the person who presented the passport; and that the man in the tank top, as depicted in the photos, was the one driving said red Honda Civic to Columbia Towing's location. Mr. Martinez also testified that these individuals were together and told Mr. Martinez that the car was to be "junked;" that he had the individual presenting his passport complete a NYS Department of Motor Vehicles form entitled "Statement of Vehicle Owner Who Does Not Have a Valid Title" (a.k.a. MV-35); and that this form is then presented to the junk facility as proof of ownership.[FN4] Upon the court's inquiry regarding whether this seemed [*3]suspicious or unusual, Mr. Martinez testified that a car can be "junked" where an individual provides an identification, even if they do not provide a title to the vehicle. Mr. Martinez confirmed that claimant called Columbia Towing, and that Columbia Towing provided their surveillance video to claimant.

On behalf of Bronx Junk Depot, Mr. Siegel presented documentary evidence (collectively marked as defendants' exhibit A), which included a printout confirming that Bronx Junk Car Depot LLC is a licensed scrap processor with the NYS Department of Motor Vehicles (hereinafter "NYS DMV" or "DMV"). Mr. Siegel testified that the mechanism that the Vehicle and Traffic Law (hereinafter "VTL") has in place when a facility such as theirs accepts a car, is to either receive the title or, in lieu of the title, the person attesting that they are the owner of the vehicle along with identification can fill out the DMV form; and that the scrap processor receives the completed MV-35 form with identification from the owner and the agent who brings the vehicle to the scrap processor. Mr. Siegel also provided a NYS DMV printout of the information and regulations for junk and salvage businesses as part of defendants' exhibit A with highlighted portions of § 81.8 (a)(3), upon which he was relying for his defense. Mr. Siegel also testified that Bronx Junk Depot has no mechanism to run Vehicle Identification Numbers; that they only require identification from the person purporting to be the owner of the car as well as the person bringing a vehicle to their facility. Mr. Siegel further testified that Bronx Junk Depot's only obligation is to report any disposed vehicles to the federal government, which was done here.[FN5] Mr. Siegel re-asserted that the VTL allows for Bronx Junk Depot's acceptance of a car via only the MV-35 form as long as they have proof of who owns the car via their signature on that form, as well as proof of the delivery agent, to wit, Columbia Towing through Mr. Martinez. Through the collective testimony of both defendant witnesses, summarily their asserted defense appears to be that NYS law allows their acceptance of a vehicle for destruction through a valid identification of any kind and a signed MV-35 form, with nothing more required on their part.

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

Related

People Ex Rel. Smyth v. Lynch
173 N.E. 571 (New York Court of Appeals, 1930)
Gruntal v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.
173 N.E. 682 (New York Court of Appeals, 1930)
Snitkin v. State Liquor Authority
29 A.D.2d 853 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1968)
Blair v. Five Points Shopping Plaza, Inc.
51 A.D.2d 167 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1976)
Williams v. Roper
269 A.D.2d 125 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)
Baran v. Weitsman's Scrap Yard
47 Misc. 3d 512 (Jamestown City Court, 2015)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2026 NY Slip Op 50117(U), Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/torres-v-colombiacolombio-towing-nycivctbronx-2026.