Case ID: misc_132/html/0057-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

New York Democrat Publishing Corporation, Appellant, v. “William” T. Laing, First Name Fictitious, etc., Doing Business as the Postal Service, and John Doe, Real Name Unknown to the Plaintiff, Respondents.
    Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department,
    May 2, 1928.
    Replevin — counterclaim — service performed by defendants did not bring them within provisions of Lien Law, § 180, so as to give them lien — counterclaim for balance due which included charges for services other than those performed in connection with replevied chattels, stricken out.
    In this action in replevin, the services performed by defendants did not bring them within the provisions of section 180 of the Lien Law, giving a person who makes repairs, or in any way enhances the value of an article of personal property, a lien thereon. Nor may they counterclaim for a balance due, which includes charges for services other than those performed in connection with the replevied chattels. Therefore, the defense should be stricken out and defendants’ counterclaim limited to the work done in connection with the replevied chattels.
    
      Appeal by plaintiff from order of the City Court of the City of New York, New York county, denying motion to strike out defense and to limit counterclaim.
    
      Eugene S. Bibb, for the appellant.
    
      George D. Zahm, for the respondents.
   Per Curiam.

The services performed by defendant did not

bring him within the provisions of the statute (Lien Law, § 180) giving a person who makes, alters, repairs or in any way enhances the value of an article of personal property a lien thereon. (Brackett v. Pierson, 114 App. Div. 281.) Nor in this replevin action can defendant counterclaim for a balance due which includes charges for services other than those performed in connection with the replevied chattels. (Fleming v. Jackson, 222 App. Div. 296; Carpenter v. Manhattan Life Ins. Co., 93 N. Y. 552.)

Order reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion granted to the extent of striking out the defense and limiting defendant’s counterclaim to the work done in connection with the replevied chattels, with leave to defendant to serve an amended answer within six days upon payment of such costs and disbursements.

Lydon and Levy, JJ., concur; Bijur, J., dissents.