LLESHANAKU v. Hook & Go Towing Service, Inc., Respondent. (2020)

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

Insofar as relevant to this appeal, plaintiff commenced this small claims action against defendant Hook & Go Towing Service, Inc. (Hook & Go) to recover the sum of $174.20 for towing fees he had paid to that defendant.¹

At a nonjury trial, it was established that a notice of parking violation had been issued and affixed to plaintiff's vehicle by a law enforcement officer, based on plaintiff's vehicle having allegedly been parked in front of a driveway owned by defendant Erica Jewel Weber (see RCNY 4-08 [f] [2] ). Subsequently, defendant Weber called defendant Hook & Go to tow the vehicle away. When plaintiff sought to retrieve his vehicle from defendant Hook & Go, he was required to pay $174.20 for the vehicle's release. Plaintiff seeks to recover this payment because the parking violations summons was ultimately dismissed, which, plaintiff contends, rendered the towing of his vehicle illegal. Following the trial, a judgment was entered dismissing the action insofar as asserted against defendant Hook & Go.

In a small claims action, our review is limited to a determination of whether “substantial justice has ․ been done between the parties according to the rules and principles of substantive law” (CCA 1807; see CCA 1804; Ross v. Friedman, 269 AD2d 584 [2000]; Williams v. Roper, 269 AD2d 125 [2000]).

Pursuant to Administrative Code § 19-169 (a), the issuance and affixation of the notice of parking violation to plaintiff's car by “a person authorized to issue a notice of parking violation” (Administrative Code of the City of New York § 19-169 [a] ) authorized defendant Weber to call defendant Hook & Go to remove the car, and the removal of the car is deemed to be at the request of the law enforcement officer who issued the notice of parking violation, not at the request of Weber or Hook & Go. Administrative Code § 19-169 (c) (8) provides that a licensed towing company may, under the circumstances presented here, collect towing and storage fees from the vehicle's owner. The fact that the summons was later dismissed cannot retroactively nullify defendant Hook & Go's entitlement to be paid for its services.

Upon a review of the record, we find that the judgment provided the parties with substantial justice (see CCA 1804, 1807).

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Plaintiff also sought judgment against defendant Erica Jewel Weber. However, so much of the appeal as concerned that defendant has been dismissed as untimely taken.

WESTON, J.P., ALIOTTA and SIEGAL, JJ., concur.