Sharrock v. Dell Buick-Cadillac, Inc.
New York Court of Appeals
45 N.Y.2d 152, 408 N.Y.S.2d 39, 379 N.E.2d 1169 (1978)
- Written by Steven Pacht, JD
Facts
Joan Sharrock (plaintiff) brought her car to Dell Buick-Cadillac, Inc. (Dell) (defendant) to be repaired. When Sharrock did not pay, Dell told Sharrock that it would sell the car at auction if Sharrock did not pay within 30 days. Dell eventually purchased the car, which was worth at least $1,200, at auction for $502. The auction was conducted pursuant to the New York Lien Law, which gave garagemen liens on vehicles they serviced and authorized garagemen to sell cars with unpaid repair bills. Per the Lien Law, a garageman could sell a car 24 days after notifying the debtor of an intended sale; garagemen had no obligation to notify the court, receive court permission, or provide a bond or affidavit. In addition, the Lien Law did not provide debtors with any opportunities to judicially challenge the amount of the debt due before a sale and shielded garagemen from liability. Sharrock sued Dell, claiming that the sale authorized by the Lien Law violated her due-process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and the New York Constitution. The supreme court denied Sharrock’s motion for summary judgment. The appellate division reversed. Dell appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Cooke, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
