Freeman v. Kiamesha Concord, Inc. Civil Court of the City of New York, Small Claims Part, New York County January 7, 1974 No Number in Original Reporter 76 Misc. 2d 915 *; 351 N.Y.S.2d 541 **; 1974 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1977 *+* Brian M. Freeman, Plaintiff, v. Kiamesha Concord, Inc., wrong that the statute was meant to address. The court Defendant determined that $ 206 was not intended to prevent the hotel operator from insisting that the hotel guest comply Disposition: [**1] Judgment is accordingly awarded with the terms of the contract for a fixed minimum stay. to the defendant, with costs. Outcome Core Terms The court awarded a judgment to the hotel operator on the hotel guest's claim concerning the charges that he paid for the day that he did not stay in the hotel. hotel, guest, weekend, facilities, reservation, recreational, advertisement, contracted, utilization, traveled, resort, strictly construed, entertainment, LexisNexis@ Headnotes charges, holiday Case Summary Contracts Law > Remedies > General Overview Procedural Posture Plaintiff hotel guest brought an action against defendant Torts > ... > General Premises Liability > Types of Premises > Hotels hotel operator pursuant to N. Y. Gen. Bus. Law & 206 concerning charges that the hotel guest paid for a day HN1 Contracts Law, Remedies that had not commenced before he checked out. N.Y. Gen. Bus, Law 6 206 reads in part as follows: No Overview charge or sum shall be collected or received by any The hotel guest checked out of a hotel prior to the hotel keeper or inn keeper for any service not actually expiration of the period for which he had contracted to rendered or for a longer time than the person so stay because of an alleged misrepresentation about the charged actually remained at such hotel or inn provided entertainment. The hotel operator insisted upon full such guest shall have given such hotel keeper or inn payment in accordance with the hotel guest's keeper notice at the office of his departure. For any reservation. The hotel guest instituted an action against violation of this section the offender shall forfeit to the the hotel operator for treble damages pursuant to /.Y. injured party three times the amount so charged and Gen. Bus. Law $ 206. The court awarded a judgment to shall not be entitled to receive any money for meals the hotel operator. The court found that the services, or time charged. advertisement relied upon by the hotel guest did not contain a false representation about the entertainment and that the hotel operator could not be found liable Governments > Courts > Common Law based upon the hotel guest's misunderstanding of the advertisement. The court concluded that the hotel guest Governments > Legislation > Interpretation had not proved a violation of $ 206 because the evidence did not show the existence of the type of HW2 Courts, Common LawA must statutory restriction in derogation of the common section 206 of General Business Law is quasi-penal law must be strictly construed in favor of a common law and should not be construed to reward guest who right and against any expansion of the restriction. breaches his contract. 1. Plaintiff contracted with a resort hotel, which offered Governments > Legislation > Interpretation lodging, meals, sports, recreation and entertainment, for a stay of at least three days for himself and his wife at $ HN3 Legislation, Interpretation 84.80 a day. In his room, posted on the door, were the rates and charges and various statutory provisions, A statute that is quasi-penal in nature should be strictly including section 206 of the General Business Law. At construed against the extension of its application to the end of two days, he breached his contract by areas not expressly mandated or contemplated by the checking out. He paid for all three days, under protest. legislature. His action to recover "three times the amount so charged" (General Business Law, $ 206) is dismissed. 2. Section 206 of the General Business Law, which Governments > Legislation > Interpretation penalizes a hotel for charging "for a longer time than the person * * * actually remained at such hotel", is both HN4 Legislation, Interpretation quasi-penal and contrary to the common [" 2] law of contracts. Its purpose when first enacted in 1883 was to The construction to be accorded a statute must protect weary travelers who sought an overnight rest at harmonize with the other general principles that have the only inn available. The present day situation is evolved to assist courts in arriving at a determination of vastly different. The statute should not be construed legislative intent. Consideration must be given to the today to penalize a hotel which fulfills its contract, and to mischief sought to be remedied by the new legislation. give a bounty to a guest who breaches his contract. Counsel: Brian M. Freeman, plaintiff in person. Governments > Legislation > Interpretation HN5] Legislation, Interpretation Bernstein & Bernstein (Charles E. Bernstein of counsel), for defendant. Statutory construction must be sought which is consistent with achieving a statute's purpose and with Judges: Shanley N. Egeth, J. justice and common sense. Consideration must be given to the customs, usages and history prevalent at Opinion by: EGETH the time of enactment, to present customs and usages not then prevalent, and to the avoidance of Opinion "objectionable consequences, "inconvenience." "hardship or injustice," "mischief," or "absurdity." Contemporaneous exposition practical construction that ['916] [" 542] Determination of the issues in this has received the acquiescence of the public will be Small Claims Part case requires a present construction given considerable weight. of the meaning of language contained in section 206 of the General Business Law as it applies to current Headnotes/Summary widespread and commonplace practices and usages in the hotel and resort industry. Although the pertinent statutory provision has essentially been in effect since Headnotes its original enactment ninety years ago (L. 1883, ch. 227, 5 3), there appears to be no reported decision Innkeepers -- guest's contract to stay at least three which directly construes or interprets its meaning and days -- guest who agrees to stay for at least certain applicability. number of days, and who checks out before such agreed minimum period and pays full amount under THE STATUTORY LANGUAGE protest, has no cause of action against hotel