## Facts

- Joan Sharrock owned a 1970 Cadillac that her husband delivered to Dell Buick-Cadillac, Inc. for installation of a replacement engine for $225.
- The work authorization, according to Sharrock and her husband, did not provide for storage charges; Dell later asserted storage fees.
- When Sharrock’s husband offered to pay $225, Dell instructed him to withhold payment until installation was complete.
- The first replacement engine proved defective; Dell removed it and later received another engine.
- Dell refused to install the later engine unless the earlier $225 charge was first paid; Sharrock’s husband lacked the money and was soon hospitalized.
- Dell claimed a garageman’s lien for repair and storage charges under New York Lien Law § 184 and enforced the lien by a nonjudicial sale procedure under Lien Law §§ 200–204.
- Under the statutory procedure, Dell could sell the vehicle at public auction after notice to the owner, without prior judicial approval and without a mechanism for the owner to contest the debt before sale.
- Dell sold the Cadillac at public auction for about $500 and bought it itself; the car was allegedly worth at least about $1,200.

## Issues

1. Whether New York Lien Law §§ 200, 201, 202, and 204 violate N.Y. Const. art. I, § 6 by authorizing an ex parte, nonjudicial sale of a bailed automobile without a pre-sale opportunity to be heard.
2. Whether the same statutory scheme involves sufficient state action to violate the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause.

## Decision

- The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division’s grant of summary judgment to Sharrock.
- The court held that Lien Law §§ 200, 201, 202, and 204 were unconstitutional under N.Y. Const. art. I, § 6 as applied to an ex parte foreclosure sale of a bailed automobile.
- The court set aside the lien foreclosure sale conducted under the challenged provisions.
- The court addressed federal state-action doctrine but resolved the case on independent state constitutional grounds.

## Legal Principles

- Due process under N.Y. Const. art. I, § 6 requires notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard before a substantial deprivation of property occurs, absent a sufficient justification for postponing the hearing.
- A statutory scheme that empowers a private creditor to sell another’s property to satisfy an asserted debt, without judicial supervision and without a pre-sale procedure to contest the debt’s existence or amount, fails state constitutional due process.
- New York’s due process clause may be construed more broadly than the Fourteenth Amendment because it is not textually limited to deprivations by the State; the requisite state involvement may be satisfied where the legislature creates and structures the private remedy and its immunities.

## Conclusion

The court invalidated the nonjudicial garageman lien-sale procedure as applied to automobiles because it allowed a creditor to deprive an owner of a significant property interest through an ex parte sale without any pre-deprivation chance to contest the claimed debt, violating state constitutional due process.


Sharrock v. Dell Buick-Cadillac, Inc., 45 N.Y.2d 152 (N.Y. 1978)