Paul DeRose Lawsuit vs. Mad Dog: Estimate Rule and Default Judgment

Paul DeRose, a Darien, Connecticut, resident, filed his lawsuit against Mad Dog Service Inc. and its owner Jon Lovallo in Westchester County Supreme Court on January 22, 2026, alleging the Port Chester, New York, auto shop held his 2013 Jeep Wrangler for eight months, stopped communicating, and then refused to return it unless he paid roughly $7,000 in charges he never approved.¹ A judge granted DeRose a default judgment on April 7, 2026, after the defendants failed to respond.²

What Happened to the Jeep

In January 2025, DeRose brought his Jeep Wrangler to Mad Dog for a package of custom work: suspension upgrades, new wheels, tires, lighting, and accessories. The shop gave him a written estimate of $11,310 for parts, with no separate quote for labor. He paid $12,730.12 upfront.¹³

Then the shop went quiet. His requests for updates went unanswered. By September 2025, roughly eight months had passed without substantive word on the Jeep.³

On September 20, 2025, DeRose showed up at the shop with a tow truck to take the Jeep back. Lovallo refused to release it, telling him he owed an additional $7,000. When pressed, Lovallo produced an invoice listing 29 hours of labor and extra parts that DeRose says he never authorized. According to the complaint, Lovallo could not produce any written authorization for the added work. DeRose called the Port Chester police, but even with officers on scene, the shop did not release the vehicle.¹³

The Claims and What DeRose Is Seeking

DeRose’s complaint brings five causes of action: fraud, conversion, breach of contract, deceptive business practices, and unjust enrichment. It calls the shop’s conduct “wrongful, unlawful, and without justification” and alleges the behavior “is not an isolated incident.”⁴

He is seeking the immediate return of the Jeep, compensation for the loss of use of the vehicle during the months it was withheld, restitution for unjust enrichment, and damages equal to three times the actual monetary loss.¹⁴ He is represented by A. Robert Dawes of Dawes Law PLLC in Mamaroneck, New York.

The Estimate Rule at the Center of the Dispute

New York Lien Law § 184 says that when an auto repair shop provides a written estimate, it cannot assert a lien on a vehicle for an amount exceeding that estimate.⁵ DeRose’s complaint leans on this point, arguing that the $7,000 demand went beyond the written estimate and was never separately authorized in writing.

Default Judgment and Lovallo’s Failed Attempt to Reopen

Lovallo and Mad Dog did not respond to the lawsuit. On April 7, 2026, Westchester County Supreme Court Justice William J. Giacomo granted DeRose’s motion for a default judgment. The public docket does not list the specific damages amount or say whether the ruling explicitly ordered the vehicle’s return.²

Lovallo tried to re-enter the case. On June 3, 2026, he filed an order to show cause, and the court declined to sign it. A related motion filed the same day was also declined. The case remains on the court’s active calendar.²¹³

Earlier Lawsuits Against Mad Dog Service

DeRose’s complaint says his case is not the first of its kind. According to the complaint, the shop has been sued by customers at least four times in roughly 11 years, with earlier lawsuits filed in 2015, 2020, and 2024. All three ended in default judgments against the shop, meaning Lovallo and Mad Dog failed to respond in court each time.¹

The 2024 case was brought by William and Nina Draddy of Rye, New York, who paid Mad Dog $66,125 in February 2019 to restore a 1974 Toyota Land Cruiser FJ40 after an engine fire. The agreed completion target was March 2021. By the time they sued in Westchester Supreme Court in March 2024, they alleged they had received no evidence of the vehicle’s condition or whereabouts. Their complaint included breach of contract, conversion, trespass on personal property, fraudulent misrepresentation, and unjust enrichment.⁶

DeRose’s complaint describes the history as a “recurring pattern of substantially identical conduct” involving prolonged retention of customer vehicles, unauthorized charges, and refusal to release vehicles until disputed fees are paid.¹

1
Westfair Online. Another Customer Mad at Mad Dog in Port Chester
2
Trellis Law. Paul Derose v. Mad Dog Service, Inc. Et Al
3
CT Insider. Darien Jeep Lawsuit Against Mad Dog Service
4
Stamford Advocate. Darien Jeep Lawsuit Against Mad Dog Service
5
Justia. NY Lien Law Section 184
6
Westfair Online. Rye Couple Sues Mechanic Over 5-Year Toyota Cruiser Odyssey