Ford Motor Credit Company, Inc. v. Racwell Construction, Inc.
| Decision Date | 12 December 2005 |
| Docket Number | 2004-09360. |
| Citation | 808 N.Y.S.2d 294,24 A.D.3d 500,2005 NY Slip Op 09490 |
| Parties | FORD MOTOR CREDIT COMPANY, INC., Respondent, v. RACWELL CONSTRUCTION, INC., et al., Appellants. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Ordered that the order is modified, on the law, by deleting the provisions thereof granting that branch of the plaintiff's motion which was for summary judgment on the issue of damages and directing the entry of a judgment in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendants in the sum of $13,092.77, and substituting therefor a provision denying that branch of the plaintiff's motion; as so modified, the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Westchester County, for further proceedings in accordance herewith.
The defendants Francesco Racanelli and Racwell Construction, Inc., leased a vehicle from Pleasantville Ford, a nonparty. The plaintiff Ford Motor Credit Company, Inc. (hereinafter Ford), was designated as the agent for enforcement of the lease. The lease called for 36 monthly payments and included an option to purchase the vehicle at the end of the lease. At the end of the lease, the defendants did not exercise the purchase option, nor did they return the vehicle as required by the lease. Almost four months after the end of the term, Ford repossessed the vehicle and sold it at a private auto auction.
Ford commenced this action to recover from the defendants the deficiency under the default provisions of the lease. The defendants counterclaimed to recover damages resulting from Ford's alleged breach of the lease, arguing that it failed to cancel the lease before repossessing the vehicle. Both Ford and the defendants moved for summary judgment. The Supreme Court denied the defendants' motion and granted Ford's motion, and directed the entry of judgment against the defendants in the amount sought by Ford. The defendants appeal.
While the Supreme Court properly granted Ford summary judgment on the issue of liability, it erred in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
VFS Fin., Inc. v. Shilo Mgmt. Corp.
...argue in the deficiency action that the sale was not commercially reasonable. See Ford Motor Credit Co., Inc. v. Racwell Constr., Inc., 24 A.D.3d 500, 501, 808 N.Y.S.2d 294, 295 (2005) (holding under UCC § 9–626(a)(2) that the secured party must prove that the sale of the collateral was don......
-
Commerce Commercial Leasing, LLC v. PIO Enterprises, Inc.
...571, 782 N.Y.S.2d 677;Terminal Mktg. Co. v. Murphy, 296 A.D.2d 399, 400, 745 N.Y.S.2d 443; see also Ford Motor Credit Co., Inc. v. Racwell Constr., Inc., 24 A.D.3d 500, 501, 808 N.Y.S.2d 294). In opposition, PIO and Ingrassia (hereinafter together the appellants) failed to raise a triable i......
-
Himelsein Mandel Fund Mgmt., LLC v. Fortress Inv. Grp. LLC
...that creates a security interest in personal property is governed by article 9. (Ford Motor Credit Co., Inc. v. Racwell Constr., Inc. (N.Y. Sup.Ct.App.Div. 2005) 24 A.D.3d 500 (Ford Motor Credit).) The CSA created a security interest in the life settlements and therefore was governed by art......
-
Vfs Financing Inc v. Specialty Financial Corp.
...under the circumstances. In New York, secured transactions are governed by UCC article 9. Ford Motor Credit Co., Inc. v. Racwell Const, Inc., 808 N.Y.S.2d 294, 295 (N.Y.A.D. 2005). Under that code, the creditor bears the burden of proving that the disposition was commercially reasonable whe......