American Honda Finance Corp. v. DeIorio

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

American Honda Finance Corp. v. DeIorio

260 A.D.2d 416, 687 N.Y.S.2d 730, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3847

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedApril 12, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 260 A.D.2d 416 (American Honda Finance Corp. v. DeIorio) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

American Honda Finance Corp. v. DeIorio, 260 A.D.2d 416, 687 N.Y.S.2d 730, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3847 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for breach of a lease of an automobile, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Fredman, J.), entered May 11, 1998, which granted the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability and to dismiss their counterclaims.

[417]*417Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court correctly determined that the plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on the issue of liability. “A secured party after default may sell, lease or otherwise dispose of any or all of the collateral in its then condition or following any commercially reasonable preparation or processing” (UCC § 9-504 [1]). Contrary to the appellants’ contention, the plaintiff adequately demonstrated that it mailed a notice of such sale to the appellants, as required by Uniform Commercial Code § 9-504 (3). The appellants’ claim that they did not receive the notice is irrelevant. “There is no requirement that the debtor receive actual notice” (Thornton v Citibank, 226 AD2d 162; see, Dougherty v 425 Dev. Assocs., 93 AD2d 438). Further, the address to which the plaintiff mailed the notice was the address provided in the subject lease.

The appellants’ remaining contention is without merit. Mangano, P. J., Santucci, Krausman and Florio, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

—In an action to recover damages for breach of a lease of an automobile, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Fredman, J.), entered May 11, 1998, which granted the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability and to dismiss their counterclaims.

[417]*417Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court correctly determined that the plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on the issue of liability. “A secured party after default may sell, lease or otherwise dispose of any or all of the collateral in its then condition or following any commercially reasonable preparation or processing” (UCC § 9-504 [1]). Contrary to the appellants’ contention, the plaintiff adequately demonstrated that it mailed a notice of such sale to the appellants, as required by Uniform Commercial Code § 9-504 (3). The appellants’ claim that they did not receive the notice is irrelevant. “There is no requirement that the debtor receive actual notice” (Thornton v Citibank, 226 AD2d 162; see, Dougherty v 425 Dev. Assocs., 93 AD2d 438). Further, the address to which the plaintiff mailed the notice was the address provided in the subject lease.

The appellants’ remaining contention is without merit. Mangano, P. J., Santucci, Krausman and Florio, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

260 A.D.2d 416, 687 N.Y.S.2d 730, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3847, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/american-honda-finance-corp-v-deiorio-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack