Rebhun v. Executive Equipment Corp., V-C
| Decision Date | 25 April 1977 |
| Docket Number | V-C |
| Citation | 394 N.Y.S.2d 792,90 Misc.2d 576 |
| Court | New York Supreme Court |
| Parties | Howard REBHUN, Plaintiff, v. EXECUTIVE EQUIPMENT CORPORATION, Defendant |
Barandes, Rabbino & Arnold, New York City by Robert B. Shaw, New York City, Mitchell J. Devack, Forest Hills, for plaintiff.
Lindenbaum & Young, Brooklyn by Mark S. Friedlander, Alan H. Young, Brooklyn, for defendant.
Plaintiff Howard Rebhun (hereafter called Rebhun) seeks a declaratory judgment as to the rights of the parties with respect to a March, 1975, lease agreement whereby Rebhun leased a Mercedes Benz automobile from defendant Executive Equipment Corporation (hereafter called Executive) for fifteen months from April 1, 1975, to June 30, 1976, for a rental of $6,336, payable in monthly installments of $396.
This lease superseded and cancelled a lease agreement dated July 6, 1973, between Diamsco Inc., whose president was Rebhun, and Executive, and was for the same Mercedes Benz. This lease was for thirty-six months and had a purchase option for an additional $2,600.
The March, 1975, agreement was, in effect, a personal assumption of the payments due for the unexpired term of the earlier Diamsco lease and included the $2,600 purchase option.
During the term of the lease, Executive rendered monthly bills to Rebhun and he paid them. Although they disagree as to whether those payments were timely, Executive did accept the payments when made.
Rebhun said that although he intended to exercise his purchase option at the expiration of the lease, he inadvertently continued to pay three months beyond the expiration date because Executive continued to render monthly bills without notifying him that the lease had expired and the time had arrived for him to exercise his purchase option.
Rebhun claims that he is entitled to take title to the automobile upon his paying Executive $1,412. This is the option price of $2,600, less $1,188, the three monthly payments beyond the lease term.
Meanwhile, Rebhun has possession of the automobile and has not tendered payment since September, 1976.
Executive contends that plaintiff is a holdover lessee and in default of the lease agreement; therefore it is entitled to possession of the automobile and the monthly installment in arrears.
Paragraph 20(c) of the March, 1975, lease agreement states:
"If Lessor consents to Lessee's retaining possession of the leased vehicle, for a period ending after the termination date, then Lessee agrees to pay the monthly rental herein reserved prorata for such extended period, and the parties agree that all of the terms and conditions of this lease shall apply to such extended period." (emphasis supplied)
Thus, both parties' obligations continued under the agreement. Rebhun continued in possession of the vehicle and Executive consented to the continued possession by accepting the payments as they were tendered. Accordingly, Executive was entitled to the monthly payments as long as it consented to Rebhun's possession.
The purchase option is in an addendum to the agreement. It represents a continuing offer binding for the time...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Winston
...rental under lease was $1,901 and evidence showed that value of equipment might be more); Rebhun v. Executive Equipment Corp., 90 Misc.2d 576, 578, 394 N.Y.S.2d 792, 794 (N.Y.Sup.Ct. 1977) ($2,600 purchase option price was not "nominal consideration" for Mercedes Benz automobile, where tota......
-
Credit Car Leasing Corp. v. DeCresenzo
...In light of the total sum of the rental, $19,110.12, $7,500 appears not to be nominal consideration. See Rebhun v. Executive Corporation, 90 Misc.2d 576, 394 N.Y.S.2d 792 (Sup.Ct., Nassau Co.1977); cf. Jefferds v. Ellis, 127 Misc.2d 477, 486 N.Y.S.2d 649 (Sup.Ct., Cattaraugus Co.1985), rev'......
-
Matter of Spangler
...less than 25% of the list price of the goods, the parties intended the agreement as one for security; Rebhun v. Executive Equipment Corp., 90 Misc.2d 576, 394 N.Y.S.2d 792 (Sup.Ct. 1977), in which the option price was 18.2% of the aggregate of the rentals and 20% of the capital cost, and in......
-
Columbus Motor Car Co. v. Textile-Tech, Inc.
...lessee has an option to purchase, whether the purchase price is something more than nominal consideration. Rebhun v. Executive Equipment Corp. (1977), 90 Misc.2d 576, 394 N.Y.S.2d 792; See, also, Leases as Security Agreements and The Effect of a Failure to Notify on a Security Party's Recov......