Associates Discount Corp. v. Vintage Car Store, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Associates Discount Corp. v. Vintage Car Store, Inc.

29 A.D.2d 880, 288 N.Y.S.2d 576, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4407

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

DecidedMarch 18, 1968

StatusPublished

This text of 29 A.D.2d 880 (Associates Discount Corp. v. Vintage Car Store, Inc.) 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

Associates Discount Corp. v. Vintage Car Store, Inc., 29 A.D.2d 880, 288 N.Y.S.2d 576, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4407 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by plaintiff, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County, entered January 25, 1967 as, on reargument, adhered to the original decision denying plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment. Order affirmed insofar as appealed from, with $10 costs and disbursements. In our opinion, section 66 of the Personal Property Law, applicable in this action, required, before the enactment of the Uniform Commercial Code which eliminated the local filing system, that a conditional sale contract of a buyer who resides in a city in which there is a County Clerk’s office be filed in the office of that County Clerk. Therefore, the instant contract, filed in the office of the County Clerk of Onondaga County, was not misfiled. However, affirmance is required on this appeal because there are triable issues of fact present. Beldock, P. J., Brennan, Rabin, Benjamin and Munder, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by plaintiff, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County, entered January 25, 1967 as, on reargument, adhered to the original decision denying plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment. Order affirmed insofar as appealed from, with $10 costs and disbursements. In our opinion, section 66 of the Personal Property Law, applicable in this action, required, before the enactment of the Uniform Commercial Code which eliminated the local filing system, that a conditional sale contract of a buyer who resides in a city in which there is a County Clerk’s office be filed in the office of that County Clerk. Therefore, the instant contract, filed in the office of the County Clerk of Onondaga County, was not misfiled. However, affirmance is required on this appeal because there are triable issues of fact present. Beldock, P. J., Brennan, Rabin, Benjamin and Munder, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

29 A.D.2d 880, 288 N.Y.S.2d 576, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4407, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/associates-discount-corp-v-vintage-car-store-inc-nyappdiv-1968.