Candela v. Port Motors Inc.
| Court | New York Supreme Court Appellate Division |
| Writing for the Court | Before BRACKEN |
| Citation | 617 N.Y.S.2d 49,208 A.D.2d 486 |
| Decision Date | 03 October 1994 |
| Parties | , 25 UCC Rep.Serv.2d 681 Alfonso CANDELA, Appellant, v. PORT MOTORS INC., Respondent, et al., Defendant. |
Page 49
v.
PORT MOTORS INC., Respondent, et al., Defendant.
Second Department.
Riebesehl, Mayer, Millman & Keegan, Garden City (David V. Keegan, of counsel), for appellant.
Dominic J. Cornella Associates, P.C., Mineola (Ronald Quinlan, of counsel), for respondent.
Before BRACKEN, J.P., and BALLETTA, COPERTINO and HART, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In an action to recover damages for breach of warranty of title in the sale of an automobile, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (O'Shaughnessy, J.), dated January 21, 1993, which granted the motion of the defendant Port Motors, Inc., for summary judgment, and which dismissed the plaintiff's complaint insofar as it is asserted against the defendant Port Motors, Inc., and all cross claims against the defendant Port Motors, Inc.
ORDERED that the appeal from so much of the order as dismissed the cross claims against the defendant Port Motors, Inc., is dismissed, as the plaintiff is not aggrieved by that portion of the order (see, CPLR 5511); and it is further,
ORDERED that the order is reversed insofar as reviewed, on the law, and that branch of the motion of the defendant Port Motors, Inc., which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as it is asserted against it is denied; and it is further,
Page 50
ORDERED that the plaintiff is awarded one bill of costs.
In his complaint, the plaintiff alleged that the defendant Port Motors, Inc. (hereinafter Port) sold him a 1988 Lincoln Town Car for $19,067. The complaint further states that Port knew, or should have known, that it did not have valid title to the Lincoln Town Car, and that this car was later seized by officers of the Nassau County Police Department as a "suspected stolen vehicle".
In support of its motion for summary judgment, Port offered evidence which tended to show that it had no knowledge of the car's having been stolen prior to its purchase of the car from a wholesaler, Joseph Scaffadi. The plaintiff, in opposing Port's motion, produced a "police investigative report" which details the circumstances which led police officers to suspect that the car was in fact stolen. The court granted Port's motion, and the instant appeal ensued. We reverse.
Contrary to Port's contention, the plaintiff would be entitled to recover damages based on Port's violation of his warranty of title if the subject vehicle is proved to have been stolen from its original owner (see, UCC 2-312[1]; Masoud v. Ban Credit...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mixon v. TBV, Inc.
...v. Town of Huntington, 204 A.D.2d 439, 440, 611 N.Y.S.2d 652; Kelly v. D'Amico, 203 A.D.2d 427, 610 N.Y.S.2d 582; Candela v. Port Motors, 208 A.D.2d 486, 488, 617 N.Y.S.2d 49; Sabini v. Artandi, 202 A.D.2d 568, 569, 609 N.Y.S.2d 622;904 N.Y.S.2d 140Giuffrida v. Panasonic Indus. Co., 200 A.D......
-
Moore Equipment Co. v. Halferty, WD
...combine. See also Pate v. Elliott, 61 Ohio App.2d 144, 400 N.E.2d 910 (Ohio App.1978) (A thief has void title); Candela v. Port Motors, 208 A.D.2d 486, 617 N.Y.S.2d 49 (1994) (Car thief is not a "purchaser" for the purposes of UCC Section 2-403); Olin Corp. v. Cargo Carriers, Inc., 673 S.W.......
-
Schoeps v. Museum of Modern Art, 07 Civ. 11074 (JSR).
...obtained by common-law larceny confers no title which can protect an innocent purchaser from the thief."); Candela v. Port Motors, Inc., 208 A.D.2d 486, 487, 617 N.Y.S.2d 49 (2d Dept.1994) (holding that, under UCC 2-403(1), one who purchased a stolen car cannot convey good title to a subseq......
-
Doris v. Calia
...summary judgment on the issue of liability with respect to the codefendant Vito Calia (see, CPLR 5511; Candela v. Port Motors, Inc., 208 A.D.2d 486, 617 N.Y.S.2d 49; Yule v. Town of Huntington, 204 A.D.2d 439, 611 N.Y.S.2d 652; Board of Mgrs. of Riverview at Coll. Point Condominium III v. S......
-
Mixon v. TBV, Inc.
...v. Town of Huntington, 204 A.D.2d 439, 440, 611 N.Y.S.2d 652; Kelly v. D'Amico, 203 A.D.2d 427, 610 N.Y.S.2d 582; Candela v. Port Motors, 208 A.D.2d 486, 488, 617 N.Y.S.2d 49; Sabini v. Artandi, 202 A.D.2d 568, 569, 609 N.Y.S.2d 622;904 N.Y.S.2d 140Giuffrida v. Panasonic Indus. Co., 200 A.D......
-
Moore Equipment Co. v. Halferty, No. WD
...combine. See also Pate v. Elliott, 61 Ohio App.2d 144, 400 N.E.2d 910 (Ohio App.1978) (A thief has void title); Candela v. Port Motors, 208 A.D.2d 486, 617 N.Y.S.2d 49 (1994) (Car thief is not a "purchaser" for the purposes of UCC Section 2-403); Olin Corp. v. Cargo Carriers, Inc., 673 S.W.......
-
Schoeps v. Museum of Modern Art, No. 07 Civ. 11074 (JSR).
...obtained by common-law larceny confers no title which can protect an innocent purchaser from the thief."); Candela v. Port Motors, Inc., 208 A.D.2d 486, 487, 617 N.Y.S.2d 49 (2d Dept.1994) (holding that, under UCC 2-403(1), one who purchased a stolen car cannot convey good title to a subseq......
-
Doris v. Calia
...summary judgment on the issue of liability with respect to the codefendant Vito Calia (see, CPLR 5511; Candela v. Port Motors, Inc., 208 A.D.2d 486, 617 N.Y.S.2d 49; Yule v. Town of Huntington, 204 A.D.2d 439, 611 N.Y.S.2d 652; Board of Mgrs. of Riverview at Coll. Point Condominium III v. S......