Domestic Finance Corp. v. Tinney Cadillac Corp.

• Court: New York City Court
• Writing for the Court: JOSEPH P. KUSZYNSKI
• Citation: Domestic Finance Corp. v. Tinney Cadillac Corp., 197 N.Y.S.2d 693, 23 Misc.2d 153 (N.Y. City Ct. 1960)
• Decision Date: 02 March 1960
• Parties: DOMESTIC FINANCE CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. TINNEY CADILLAC CORPORATION, Defendant.

Page 693

197 N.Y.S.2d 693

23 Misc.2d 153

DOMESTIC FINANCE CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. TINNEY CADILLAC CORPORATION, Defendant.

City Court of Buffalo.

March 2, 1960.

William G. Heffron, Buffalo (John J. Heffron, Buffalo, of counsel), for plaintiff.

John F. Gunderman, Jr., Buffalo, for defendant.

JOSEPH P. KUSZYNSKI, Judge.

The above-entitled matter was heard before me, without a jury, on December 1, 1959 and on February 23, 1960.

Plaintiff, Domestic Finance Corporation, loaned $500 to one Arthur DeLuca, and accepted a chattel mortgage, dated January 30, 1958 on DeLuca's 1957 Buick. Thereafter, a true copy of said chattel mortgage was filed on February 4, 1958, in the City Clerk's Office of the City of Niagara Falls, New York. Subsequently, DeLuca traded said 1957 Buick automobile to defendant, Tinney Cadillac Corporation, on the purchase of a 1958 Cadillac, without paying the amount due to plaintiff and secured by the chattel mortgage in the amount of $325.02. The 1958 Cadillac became an object of notoriety as it was involved in the still-unsolved slaying of DeLuca prior to the commencement of this action.

Defendant objected on trial to the admissibility of testimony between an officer of plaintiff corporation and the deceased mortgagor, DeLuca, under Section 347 of the Civil Practice Act. The objection is without substance, as exempted from the prohibitions of Section 347 of the Civil Practice Act are conversations of banking officials wich decedents pertaining to banking transactions.

Defendant placed into issue the residence of the deceased, DeLuca, which is of primary importance as residence affects the location of the public office where the chattel mortgage must be filed. Section 232 of the Lien Law states unequivocally that all chattel mortgages must be filed in the city or town clerk's office unless there is a County Clerk's Office in such city or town, in which case it must be filed therein.

Defendant argued that the street address on the photostatic copy of DeLuca's ownership certificate was mutilated. There is, however, no such mutilation or erasure on the copy of the chattel mortgage filed in the City Clerk's Office in Niagara Falls, New York.

It is incumbent upon the chattel mortgagee to inquire and determine the actual residence of one who is about to execute a chattel mortgage on personal property. Winters v. Municipal Capital Corporation, D.C., 26 F.Supp. 330; In re Steiner, D.C., 249 F. 880.

I find that the proof, as adduced on trial and by exhibit of the ownership certificate, though mutilated, was sufficient since of primary importance is the city or the town where the chattel mortgagor resides and not the actual street. Plaintiff's exhibit, inconclusive as to the street address, was conclusive as to the city of the chattel mortgagor's residence, to wit, Niagara Falls; and, thus, the proof was in substantial compliance with this requirement.

It is defendant's contention that a chattel mortgage executed by a resident of the City of Niagara Falls, in order to be a valid chattel mortgage, must be filed in the so-called County Clerk's Office in Niagara Falls and not in the City Clerk's Office under Section 232 of the Lien Law and, since the defendant searched the records of the County Clerk in Niagara Falls and has not found any chattel mortgage on record in said office, the chattel mortgage upon the 1957 Buick owned by Arthur DeLuca was void as to defendant since the defendant corporation did not have proper notice pursuant to Article 10 of the Lien Law.

The...