Was Vehicle Legally Sold at Auction? Action Time-Barred?
Thomas Jackson sued Casino Towing Service, Inc. to recover for conversion, breach of a constructive bailment, negligence, unjust enrichment, and violation of the Lien Law in regards to his vehicle, which was seized by the New York State Police, towed by CTS February 7, 2017, and thereafter sold at auction on March 23, 2018.
Jackson moved to dismiss CTS’s affirmative defenses, including failure to state a cause of action and statute of limitations. In his affidavits in support of his motion, Jackson averred that he went to CTS’s place of business on February 8, 2017 demanding the return of his vehicle and providing a notice of recorded lien from his financing company which listed him as the owner of the vehicle. Jackson further averred that CTS refused to release the vehicle without proof of ownership in the form of a valid title or registration.
CTS cross-moved to dismiss the complaint and for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, arguing that the causes of action were either time-barred or lacked merit. In the affidavits of its president in support of its cross motion, as well as in its verified answer and counterclaim, CTS disputed that Jackson provided the notice of recorded lien as proof of ownership when he appeared at the office and demanded the return of the vehicle, but admitted that CTS had sent a notice of impound and a notice of lien and sale to Jackson, as the owner of the vehicle.
Civil Court granted CTS’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, finding that Jackson had failed to establish ownership or a proprietary interest in the vehicle, essential to maintaining the action, and, thus, Jackson had failed to meet his burden to defeat CTS’s cross motion. The Civil Court also denied Jackon’s motion to dismiss the affirmative defenses. Jackson appealed.
In order to sustain a claim for conversion, a plaintiff must show legal ownership or an immediate superior right of possession to a specific identifiable thing and must show that the defendant exercised an unauthorized dominion over that thing to the exclusion of the plaintiff’s rights. Here, the appeals Court found that CTS was entitled to summary judgment dismissing the conversion cause of action regardless of whether Jackson could establish ownership or an immediate superior right to possession of the vehicle. If Jackson neither owned the vehicle nor had the immediate superior right to possess the car, he would have failed to state a cause of action for conversion. On the other hand, if Jackson had owned or had the immediate superior right to possess the vehicle, the cause of action for conversion would be time-barred. The conversion cause of action would have accrued on February 8, 2017, when Jackson asserted, and CTS acknowledged, that Jackson demanded the return of his vehicle and that CTS refused to do so. The applicable statute of limitations for conversion was three years and the action was not commenced until March 2, 2020, more than three years after it had accrued. As the claim for conversion either lacked merit or was time-barred, Civil Court properly granted the branch of CTS’s cross motion dismissing that cause of action.
And Civil Court properly granted the branches of CTS’s cross motion dismissing Jackson’s causes of action for breach of a constructive bailment, negligence, unjust enrichment, and violation of the Lien Law.
A cause of action for breach of a constructive bailment, where the original possession was lawful, accrued on the day a demand for return of the property was made and the person in possession of the property refused to comply. As such, the date of accrual for that cause of action was on February 8, 2017, when Jackson demanded the return of his vehicle and CTS refused.
As the cause of action for breach of a constructive bailment was not a result of a contractual relationship between the parties, a six-year statute of limitations did not apply, but, rather, a three-year statute of limitations pursuant to applied. That issue of law, which appeared on the face of the record and could not have been avoided had CTS made the argument to the Civil Court, could be reached for the first time on appeal. Consequently, since the action was not commenced until March 2, 2020, more than three years after it had accrued, the statute of limitations barred the cause of action for breach of a constructive bailment.