An Individual who Successfully bid on the Contents of a Self-Storage Company’s Lockers, and Subsequently Sold at Auction the Renter's Possessions was not Held Liable for Conversion Because There was no Sufficient Evidence to Prove Conversion

The Third Judicial Department of the Appellate Division of the New York Supreme Court in Strach v. Doin, 288 A.D.2d 640 affirmed the trial court’s decision granting the successful bidder’s ( an auctioneer) motion for summary judgment in a case in which the plaintiff alleged that the Self-Storage Company and the successful bidder conspired to convert the plaintiff’s personal property. The case is discussed below.  

In this case, the Appellant-Respondent, Strach (“Appellant”) is a renter who entered into separate agreements with Defendant Exit 9 Self-Storage, Inc. (“Exit 9”) for the rental of four storage lockers. The Appellant repeatedly failed to make the required monthly payments. Exit 9 in turn notified the Appellant that it would sell the contents of the respective storage lockers pursuant to the default provisions of the rental agreements. Defendant Sonney Doin, an auctioneer (“Auctioneer”) successfully bid on the contents of Appellant's lockers and at auction subsequently sold Appellant's possessions, which apparently included a number of antiques and collectibles. 

Thereafter, the Appellant filed a suit alleging that Exit 9 failed to give him proper notice of the sale. The Appellant also alleged that Exit 9 and the Auctioneer conspired to convert the Appellant's personal property. Strach 288 A.D.2d at 641. The Auctioneer moved for summary judgment to dismiss the complaint against him and the trial court granted the Auctioneer’s motion. This appeal followed. Id 

The Appellate Court rejected the Appellant’s assertion that Supreme Court erred in granting Auctioneer's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint against him. Id. The complaint alleged that the Auctioneer "conspired to wrongfully convert plaintiff's personal property." The Court stated that there is no specific tort for conspiracy in the state of New York. Guglielmo v Unanue, 244 AD2d 718, 721. Id. The Court tried to find whether the record as a whole raises a question of fact with respect to conversion of the Appellant’s property. Id.

The Auctioneer, in support of his motion for summary judgment, averred that with the exception of the few observations he made during his brief inspection of the four storage lockers, he had no knowledge of the contents of such lockers prior to submitting his bid. Id. The Auctioneer also asserted that he did not: act as Exit 9’s agent or auctioneer in relation to the disposal of the contents of Appellant's storage units; employ in his auction business anyone who was previously employed by Exit 9; engage in any conduct to prompt the sale of Appellant's property; or conspire with anyone from Exit 9 to arrange for his receipt of the Appellant’s property. Id at 641-42. The Court stated that such proof was more than sufficient to satisfy Auctioneer’s initial burden of demonstrating that he was a good faith purchaser for value. Id at 642.

In response, the Appellant submitted an attorney's affidavit and excerpts from certain examinations before trial. The Court found that the affidavit lacks evidentiary value and the excerpts were insufficient to raise a question of fact as to the issue of conversion. Therefore, the Appellate Court concluded that the Supreme Court properly granted the Auctioneer’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint against him. Id.