From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Sciortino v. Public Storage Inc.

Appellate Term of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 10, 2010
28 Misc. 3d 22 (N.Y. App. Term 2010)

Opinion

No. 2009-957 N C.

May 10, 2010.

APPEAL from a judgment of the District Court of Nassau County, Fourth District (Norman Janowitz, J.), entered October 23, 2008. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $5,000.

Cullen Dykman, LLP, Brooklyn ( Graig A. Russo of counsel), for appellant.

Before: TANENBAUM, J.P., MOLIA and LANNACCI, JJ.


OPINION OF THE COURT


Ordered that the judgment is reversed without costs and the action is dismissed.

Plaintiff commenced this small claims action to recover $5,000 in damages after plaintiffs camper was allegedly ruined while stored at defendant's facility. Plaintiff attributed the damage to vandalism. After a nonjury trial, the District Court found that the damage to plaintiffs camper was the result of defendant's negligence and awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $5,000. Defendant appeals.

We find that substantial justice was not done between the parties according to the rules and principles of substantive law (UDCA 1807). The lease agreement between the parties stated that defendant, a self-service storage facility ( see Lien Law § 182), is not a warehouse. It also contained several exculpatory clauses, including a clause stating that defendant is not responsible for any personal property stored by plaintiff. Under the facts presented, the provisions of the Uniform Commercial Code, including section 7-204 thereof, which provides that a warehouseman is responsible for negligent damage to goods in his custody and sets forth the sole manner in which a warehouse owner may properly limit his liability, do not apply ( see Lien Law § 182 [a]). Moreover, plaintiff has not demonstrated that the damage to his camper, which he attributed to vandalism, was the result of defendant's willful or grossly negligent acts, in which case the exculpatory clauses would not be enforced ( see Kalisch-Jarcho, Inc. v City of New York, 58 NY2d 377, 384-385). Under these circumstances, there was no basis for the District Court's determination of liability. Accordingly, the judgment is reversed and the action is dismissed.


Summaries of

Sciortino v. Public Storage Inc.

Appellate Term of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 10, 2010
28 Misc. 3d 22 (N.Y. App. Term 2010)
Case details for

Sciortino v. Public Storage Inc.

Case Details

Full title:SALVATORE SCIORTINO, Respondent, v. PUBLIC STORAGE, INC., Appellant

Court:Appellate Term of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: May 10, 2010

Citations

28 Misc. 3d 22 (N.Y. App. Term 2010)
2010 N.Y. Slip Op. 20168
904 N.Y.S.2d 639