Plaintiff's subrogor owned a car that was parked by defendant's employee on a public street, and not returned. The motion court correctly found that the parking transaction constituted a bailment as a matter of law, since defendant's dominion and control, of the car was established by undisputed evidence that its employee took the key to the car and employed a "mandatory procedure" to ensure the key's return (see, e.g., Sealey v. Meyers Parking Sys., 147 Misc.2d 217, 219; Palazzo v. Katz Parking Sys., 64 Misc.2d 720, 721). Defendant did not diminish the dispositive force of this evidence by submitting the affidavit of a corporate principal with no knowledge of the parking transaction (see, Continental Ins. Co. v. Meyers Bros. Operations, 56 Misc.2d 435, 439), who, in any event, candidly admitted that he had no idea what happened to the car, and offered only conjecture about a possible theft (see, I.C.C. Metals v. Municipal Warehouse Co., 50 N.Y.2d 657, 664, n 3). We have considered defendant's other contentions and find them to be without merit.
Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Nardelli, Tom and Andrias, JJ.