Calendar Date: June 1, 2018Before: McCarthy, J.P., Lynch, Devine, Clark and Rumsey, JJ.__________Peter B. O’Connell, Albany, for appellant.Law Offices of Rudolph J. Meola, Albany (Rudolph J. Meolaof counsel), for respondent.__________McCarthy, J.P.Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (McNally Jr.,J.), entered February 23, 2017 in Albany County, which, amongother things, granted petitioner’s application, in a proceedingpursuant to Lien Law § 201-a, to declare a garagekeeper’s liennull and void.In June 2016, respondent A-1 Towing Inc. (hereinafterrespondent) towed a 2010 BMW to respondent’s garage for repair.Petitioner had a first priority perfected security interest inthe vehicle, which was owned by James Hogan. When respondentinformed Hogan that the necessary repairs would costapproximately $1,500, he authorized the repairs. A few dayslater, he requested that all repair work cease. More than a weeklater, Hogan went to the garage to retrieve his belongings fromthe vehicle and informed respondent that he was surrendering thevehicle to petitioner, which he said would be responsible forpaying any charges owed. Respondent had Hogan sign, among otherthings, a “repair bill” that, according to respondent, outlinedthe agreed-upon charges for repairs and storage. When petitionercould not settle the claim and obtain possession of the vehicle,petitioner commenced this special proceeding seeking, among otherthings, an order declaring respondent’s garagekeeper’s lien void.Respondent answered, seeking a judgment of $4,225 on its lien.Supreme Court concluded that respondent failed to establish therequisite elements for a garagekeeper’s lien and, accordingly,declared the lien asserted by respondent void. Respondentappeals.Supreme Court properly determined that respondent failed toestablish the existence of a garagekeeper’s lien on the vehicle.To assert a valid lien on a motor vehicle for the cost of towing,repairing or storing that vehicle, a garagekeeper must establishthat “(1) the garage is the bailee of a motor vehicle; (2) it hasperformed garage services or stored the vehicle with the vehicleowner’s consent; (3) there was an agreed-upon price or, if noagreement on price had been reached, the charges are reasonablefor the services supplied; and (4) the garage is a dulyregistered motor vehicle repair shop as required under article12-A of the Vehicle and Traffic Law” (Matter of National UnionFire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, Pa. v Eland Motor Car Co., 85 NY2d725, 730 [1995] [internal citations omitted]; see Lien Law § 184[1], [4]; Matter of Daimler Trust & Daimler Tit. Co. v SGAutobody LLC, 112 AD3d 1123, 1124 [2013]). The requirements ofLien Law § 184 must be strictly construed, as the statute is inderogation of the common law (see Matter of Ally Fin. Inc. vOakes Towing Serv., Inc., 130 AD3d 1355, 1356 [2015]; Grant St.Constr., Inc. v Cortland Paving Co., Inc., 55 AD3d 1106, 1107[2008]; Phillips v Catania, 155 AD2d 866, 866 [1989]). Where thepapers and pleadings in a special proceeding pursuant to Lien Law§ 201-a fail to raise a material issue of fact regarding theexistence of a valid lien, a court is authorized to make asummary determination (see CPLR 409 [b]; Matter of Jones v Marcy,135 AD2d 887, 888 [1987]).Regardless of whether the record includes proof of theother requirements under Lien Law § 184, respondent did notestablish that it was a registered motor vehicle repair shop.The only evidence respondent offered in this regard is theconclusory statement by its operations manager that the garage isa registered repair shop, along with an address for the garageand a repair shop number. Although an online search reveals thatthe garage is presently licensed under the provided repair shopnumber (see Department of Motor Vehicles, DMV-RegulatedFacilities, https://process.dmv.ny.gov/FacilityLookup/vsiqSearchFacNumResults.cfm?fac_num=7058590 [accessed June 6, 2018]),1respondent has provided no record evidence, or even made anyexplicit assertion, that the garage was so registered in June2016 (see General Motors Acceptance Corp. v Chase Collision, 140Misc 2d 1083, 1085 [Sup Ct, Suffolk County 1988]; see also Matterof Hall v Barnes, 225 AD2d 837, 838 [1996]). Inasmuch asrespondent did not establish one of the requirements for agaragekeeper’s lien, Supreme Court properly declared the lienvoid (see Matter of Daimler Trust & Daimler Tit. Co. v SGAutobody LLC, 112 AD3d at 1124-1125).Lynch, Devine, Clark and Rumsey, JJ., concur.ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.ENTER:Robert D. MaybergerClerk of the Court
