Cut-N-Edge Lawn Care

I write to respond to the complaint lodged by [redacted], which was mailed to me on July **, 2016. I have operated by dry cleaning business at this location since 1982. I have never once received a complaint with the Revdex.com. As addressed more fully below, [redacted] complaint...

contains misrepresentations and inaccuracies. I have done nothing wrong; I have explained to [redacted] how my records work; and I have tried to be reasonable with her. The bottom line is that my records reflect that [redacted] already picked up the raincoat she now claims is "missing." Moreover, she has fabricated certain contacts to get around 30-day disclaimer on my tickets concerning people who fail to pick up items after several months. And, as addressed more fully below, her assertions as to the value of the raincoat are suspect. [redacted] has made several misrepresentations in her complaint. For example, while she concedes, based on her own dry cleaning receipt, that she left an item at my store on April *, 2016, she falsely claims that she called to inquire about her "raincoat" on April ** and May *. This never happened. If [redacted] insists that she made these "calls" -- rather than coming into my store to pick up the item, which I believe she did -- then I invite her to produce her cell phone logs. She will not, because she cannot. She also falsely claims to have contacted me “a third time” on May **, 2016. The reason that [redacted] has fabricated these phone calls is because, when she appeared in my store in June complaining that her raincoat was missing, I (1) explained that my records reflect her having already picked up the raincoat and (2) showed her that her dry cleaning ticket contains a warning, in all capital letters, stating “NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR GARMENTS LEFT OVER 30 DAYS.” I include this warning because I understand that it is enforceable and that it "is similar, in both substance and presentation, to disclaimers employed by many dry cleaners." Tannenbaum v. New York Dry Cleaning, Inc., 2001 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 431 (N.Y. Cty. Civ. Ct. July *, 2010). Thus, [redacted] submitted aself-serving fabrication to get around the 30-day disclaimer. Further, after [redacted] came to me in June to complain about her raincoat, I informed her that, based on my records, she had already picked up the coat. She denies vociferously that she did so. (By the time [redacted] complained that the raincoat was missing, I had already discarded that month's pick-up receipts, but that is why I put the 30-day warning on my tickets. But, as I explained to her, based on my record keeping system, I can tell that she picked up the coat.) Although [redacted] now claims that her “raincoat” was worth a whopping $2,000, she originally told me it was worth $1,200. When I asked her to show me what kind of coat it was, she showed me several different kinds of coats from the internet. I have serious doubts about the truthfulness of [redacted] representations as to the kind of “raincoat” she left with me and the value of the coat. Even though I believe [redacted] already retrieved her item and I have doubts about her claim that it is worth $2,000, nonetheless, because I value my customers and their satisfaction, and in spite of the fact that I had done nothing wrong, I offered her $200, a significant sum for a raincoat. [redacted] rejected this generous offer. I explained to [redacted] that I take care not to lose items. I have many tickets for items that have not been retrieved from my store for several months. I call the customers to remind them to pick up their clothes. I explained to [redacted] that I did not call her because she or someone else with whom she resides who has access to her dry cleaning receipts already picked up her item. I continue to be willing to provide [redacted] with $200 because customer satisfaction is important to me. She is unwilling to handle this matter reasonably.