Gary C. Hobbs, J.
The Plaintiff is in the business of making, showing and selling quilts and quilt patterns. The Plaintiff has been in business for more than 5 years. The Plaintiff had an on-going relationship with Jessica VanDenburgh, who rented commercial space from the Defendant at 485 Glen Street, Glens Falls, New York, for Ms. VanDenburgh's quilting business. The Plaintiff had loaned five (5) quilts to Ms. VanDenburgh for showing at the Defendant's property. Two of the Plaintiff's quilts were handed personally to the Defendant, Patti Estabrook.
During the trial, the Defendant claimed that she only had possession of two of the Plaintiff's quilts. However, the defendant's present assertion is contrary to the defendant's and defendant's attorney's emails, which confirm that the defendant had possession of five of the Plaintiff's quilts. As a result, this Court does not credit the testimony of the Defendant on this issue of fact.
In January of 2015, Jessica VanDenburgh vacated the Defendant's property, but left behind approximately 14 quilts, together with some furnishings. The Defendant asserts that Ms. VanDenburgh owes the Defendant some undisclosed amount of money and, as a result, the Defendant claims that she has some security interest in any property left at the Defendant's property by Ms. VanDenburgh's property.
During the trial, the Defendant failed to produce proof of a security agreement, UCC-1 filing or other documentary evidence demonstrating any security interest in the quilts that were owned by the Plaintiff or that had been loaned to Ms. VanDenburgh by the Plaintiff.
By email letter dated February 16, 2015, the Defendant wrote to the Plaintiff stating:
"Sue, I spoke with my attorney today about me possibly being in possession of quilts that may belong to you. Could you send me pictures of the two quilts you are missing via email? I will check to see if they are among the quilts I have and if so we can discuss how to get them back to you. Patti." [Pl. Ex. 1].
On February 16, 2015, the Plaintiff emailed a letter to the Defendant stating, "I attached pictures of the quilts I believe you have." [Pl. Ex. 1]. This email letter included color pictures showing 5 quilts that Plaintiff claimed were in the Defendant's possession. [Pl. Ex. 6].
By email letter, dated February 18, 2015, from the Defendant to the Plaintiff, the Defendant wrote, "Sue, my attorney has send [sic] a letter requesting Jessica allow us to release the quilts you sent me pictures of (quilts that you advised me were your property) that I have in my possession . Once we hear back I will contact you." [Pl. Ex. 1, page 3](emphasis added).
By email letter, dated February 18, 2015, from Edwin Adeson, Esq., Defendant's attorney, to Richard Weiskopf, Esq., Jessica VanDenburgh's attorney, the defendant's counsel stated, in pertinent part, that "Ms. Pfau of Sweet Jane's came and saw Patti Estabrook earlier this week and requested her 5 quilts back that were evidently 5 of the 14 quilts that were left behind by Ms. VanDenburgh." Mr. Adeson's email continued, "Attached are pictures of the 5 quilts that were provided by Ms. Pfau and Ms. Estabrook does indeed have these five quilts . . . Ms. Estabrook does not want to release these 5 quilts without confirmation from your client that these 5 quilts are indeed owned by Ms. Pfau ..." [Pl. Ex. 1, page 5](emphasis added). A copy of Mr. Adeson's February 18, 2015 email was emailed to the Defendant.
Despite the Defendant's present assertion that she only has possession of 2 of the Plaintiff's quilts, the Defendant admittedly never objected to the 02/18/15 email of her attorney, Edwin Adeson, which confirmed that the Defendant had possession of all 5 of the Plaintiff's quilts that were shown in the emailed photographs from the Plaintiff to the Defendant.
By email letter, dated February 19, 2015, from Jessica VanDenburgh to Meghan Herbert, legal assistant to Richard Weiskopf, Esq., Ms. VanDenburgh wrote, "Yes those quilts are all the property of Sue Pfau. I borrowed them to display in the shop but they do not nor did they ever belong to me." [Pl. Ex. 1, pg. 7](emphasis added).
On or about March 7, 2015, the Defendant sent an email to the Plaintiff stating, "I have your quilts ready for you to pick up." [Pl. Ex. 1, page 8](emphasis added). The Plaintiff attempted to obtain her quilts from the Defendant. When the Defendant failed and refused to deliver the quilts to the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff commenced the present action.
The Plaintiff, who is engaged in the business of selling her quilts and has sold over 100 quilts in the past five years, testified to the value of each of her five quilts, which have a total retail value of $657.00 for all five quilts. [Pl. Ex. 4].
The Plaintiff's claim sounds in a bailment. Generally, a bailment involves "the delivery of personal property for a particular purpose under an express or implied contract with the understanding that it shall be redelivered to the person delivering it, or kept until he reclaims it after fulfillment of the purpose for which it was delivered." NY PJI § 4:93, citing, 9 NYJur2d, Bailments & Chattel Leases § 1; Beyrle v Finneron, 199 AD2d 1023, 606 NYS2d 467 (4th Dept 1993).
However, "a bailment does not always depend on a contractual relation." NY PJI § 4:93, citing, Foulke v New York Consol. R. Co., 228 NY 269, 127 NE 237 (1920); Martin v Briggs, 235 AD2d 192, 663 NYS2d 184 (1st Dept 1997). Instead, a "bailment may be actual or constructive. A constructive bailment is one implied by law when one comes into lawful possession of another's personal property, other than by mutual contract of bailment." NY PJI § 4:93, citing, Martin v Briggs, 235 AD2d 192, 663 NYS2d 184 (1st Dept 1997); Mack v Davidson, 55 AD2d 1027, 391 NYS2d 497 (4th Dept 1977). Thus, a bailment can occur where, as here, a person takes custody of found property. NY PJI § 4:93. A bailee may constructively accept the bailment of the property, "when the bailee issues a document of title acknowledging possession of the goods. NY PJI § 4:93, citing, UCC 7-102, 7-203.
In the present case, the Plaintiff has proven, by a preponderance of the evidence, a constructive bailment. Here, the Defendant obtained actual possession of the Plaintiff's five quilts, when the Defendant's tenant abandoned the leased premises leaving the Plaintiff's quilts at the Defendant's property. The Defendant acknowledged the bailment of the Plaintiff's five quilts when the Defendant acknowledged, in writing, that she had possession of the five quilts and that the five quilts were the property of the Plaintiff. Moreover, the Plaintiff's emails agreed to return the Plaintiff's quilts to the Plaintiff.
Where, as here, the "bailment is gratuitous, that is when it is for the sole benefit of the bailor, the bailee is liable only when grossly negligent." NY PJI § 4:93 (citations omitted).
In the present case, the Plaintiff attempted on two occasions to obtain the return of her quilts. On March 17, 2015, the Plaintiff sent her sister, who is also the Plaintiff's attorney, to obtain the quilts from the Defendant. The Plaintiff emailed a letter to the Defendant stating that her sister was authorized to accept the quilts on the Plaintiff's behalf, but the Defendant refused to deliver the quilts. On March 18, 2015, the Plaintiff personally appeared at the Defendant's business to obtain her quilts, but the Defendant's husband failed and refused to deliver the quilts to the Plaintiff.
As a result, the Plaintiff has proven more than gross negligence in the Defendant's failure to return the Plaintiff's property. Here, the Plaintiff has demonstrated that the Defendant has intentionally withheld the Plaintiff's quilts for the Defendant's own benefit, despite the Defendant's and the Defendant's attorney's email letters acknowledging that the Plaintiff had possession of the Plaintiff's five quilts and that the Defendant would return the Plaintiff's property to her.
At the conclusion of the trial, the Defendant asserted that she is attempting to use the Plaintiff's quilts to secure the return of property allegedly owned by the Defendant that was taken by her tenant, Jessica VanDenburgh, when Ms. VanDenburgh vacated the Defendant's property.
--------
An owner of property is qualified to testify as to the value of his or her property. Dicini, Inc. v. William Hengerer Co., 171 AD2d 515, 567 N.Y.S.2d 241 (1st Dept. 1991)(testimony of plaintiff's president, who had personal knowledge regarding the actual value of the missing merchandise, was sufficient); Webster v. Farmer, 135 Misc 2d 12, 514 N.Y.S.2d 165 (City Ct., City of Oswego, 1987); 3 Wigmore on Evidence (Chadbourn revision) § 716, pg. 56 (the "owner of an article, whether he is generally familiar with such values or not, ought certainly to be allowed to estimate its worth; the weight of his testimony [which often would be trifling] may be left to the jury; and courts have usually made no objection to this policy.").
This Court accepts the testimony of the Plaintiff that the retail value of her five quilts is $657.00. Based on the foregoing, this Court awards judgment in favor of the Plaintiff in the amount of $657.00, together with taxable costs and disbursements.
Dated: June 1, 2015
at Glens Falls, New YorkHon. Gary C. Hobbs
ENTER.
Comments