Opinion
No. SCB30364–16.
03-30-2017
ALL TAXI MANAGEMENT INC., Claimant, v. Francis GAHIE, Defendant.
All Taxi Management Inc. by: Benjamin Fink Esq., c/o Pearland Brokerage, Inc., Long Island City. Francis Gahie, Defendant Pro Se.
All Taxi Management Inc. by: Benjamin Fink Esq., c/o Pearland Brokerage, Inc., Long Island City.
Francis Gahie, Defendant Pro Se.
SABRINA B. KRAUS, J.
BACKGROUND
ALL TAXI MANAGEMENT INC. (Claimant) sued FRANCIS GAHIE (Defendant) for $5000 for liquidated damages based on alleged breach of contract. Defendant is a taxi cab driver and Claimant is a management company that leases the medallion and car to Defendant.
The action was originally returnable on February 21, 2017. On March 29, 2017, the trial took place and the court reserved decision.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Claimant and Defendant entered into a "Medallion Leasing Agreement Including Conditional Sale of Vehicle" dated June 13, 2016. The agreement provided that Defendant would lease taxicab medallion 6G13, and that the parties would execute a conditional sales agreement for the vehicle which was identified as a 2014 Toyota Prius with vin number JTDZN3EU1E3335246 (Claimant's Ex 1). Paragraphs 2 states that a separate sales agreement for the vehicle would be executed between the parties, but said agreement was not offered in evidence.
When Defendant was provided with the vehicle, he was told by El that he should have it inspected and that if any repairs were required, Claimant would take care of them. Defendant did have the vehicle inspected, and advised El that repairs were required, and El stated he would address them at a later date. On October 11, 2016, Defendant spent $800 to fix the suspension of the vehicle (Def.'s Ex A). El refused to pay for the work when Defendant submitted the bill for reimbursement, stating Claimant was not responsible because it was several months after the lease had commenced.
Claimant alleges that Defendant breached the contract by returning the car early, and that under the terms of the contract Claimant is entitled to liquidated damages totaling $5000.00.
The sole witness for claimant was Benjamin Fink Esq., who testified that he was in house counsel for claimant. Mr. Fink had no personal knowledge of the underlying events and primarily pointed out to the court provisions of the contract that Claimant was relying on in this action. Mr. Fink testified that the damages for the breach were not readily ascertainable, and that Claimant was therefore entitled to enforce the liquidated damages provision.
On November 4, 2016, Defendant was hit from behind by another car and the subject vehicle was damaged. Mr. Fink testified that Claimant paid $1115 to have the damages repaired. The bill submitted however, clearly indicates that portions of the work were unrelated to the damages, such as $320 charge to replace tires, and charges for an oil change and other routine maintenance items (Ex C–2) which Claimant presumably sought to have done after having taken back possession of the vehicle on November 7, 2016.
Defendant testified credibly and without contradiction that Claimant routinely shut off his meter and prevented him from driving if the weekly payment had not been received by Monday morning at 11 am, notwithstanding the fact that the contract allows Defendant until 5 pm to pay. This is intended to force the drivers to appear Monday morning with the required payment, which Defendant did on November 7, 2016. It is uncontested that upon said payment, which was not late, Defendant was paid up under the terms of the lease. On November 7, 2016, when Defendant went in to make the payment, El, the manager, told Defendant that he was not making enough money, and that Claimant was terminating the contract and requiring him to turn in the vehicle, unless he made a specific amount in fares by the end of the day.
Defendant failed to make the required amount in fares and as requested turned in his vehicle at the end of the day on November 7, 2016. On that date, Mr. Fink sent Defendant a letter (Def's Ex B) which stated in pertinent part:
Please be advised that your account with All Taxi Management Inc .(ATM) is seriously past due in the amount of $28,616.03 (the "Past Due Amount"). Please remit to ATM the Past Due Amount immediately or further action will be taken against you in the near future. If you are unable to pay the full Past Due Amount and are interested in a payment plan or settlement agreement, please call ATM at 718–361–0055.
ATM is interested in settling this matter outside of court on negotiated terms favorable to you and ATM. Should you desire to avoid a future lawsuit and possible suspension of your Hack License, please call us immediately at 718–361–0055.
The letter was signed by Mr. Fink as General Counsel for Claimant.
Mr. Fink stated at trial that the letter was for the full damages due based on the alleged breach but that Claimant had "waived" this claim and decided only to pursue the liquidated damages. Mr. Fink offered no explanation as to why the letter alleged that the demand was for past due payments, rather than for damages based on the alleged breach of contract. Mr. Fink was not able to reconcile the statements he made in this letter with his earlier testimony that it was impossible to ascertain the amount of the damages. Mr. Fink merely reiterated his testimony that Claimant had elected to waive the claim referenced in the letter.
Terms of the Contract
Defendant was to pay $1269 per week in advance every Monday by 5:00 pm.
Defendant paid a security deposit of $952.00, which was to be credited to Defendant's weekly payments in a pro rated portion and returned to Defendant at the end of the lease less any amounts due for unpaid lease charges "..Parking summons, red light violations, EX Pass charges and MTA Tax."
Mr. Fink acknowledged that Claimant had not been credited for said amount, made no reference to the accrued interest on said amount and claimed it was applied to the alleged vehicle damages referenced above.
Paragraph 16 provides that if the Lessor cancels the agreement "for a reason other than nonpayment of the lease fees established hereunder, the Lessor may not charge this cancellation fee."
Defendant's testimony that Claimant cancelled the agreement was credible and unrebutted by any witness with personal knowledge. It was uncontested that as of November 7, 2016 there was no delinquency in payment by Defendant under the agreement. Based on the foregoing, Claimant is not entitled to the fee sued for, and the action is dismissed with prejudice.