Firstar Equipment Finance v. Jonathan Travel & Tours, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Firstar Equipment Finance v. Jonathan Travel & Tours, Inc.

292 A.D.2d 275, 738 N.Y.S.2d 853, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3041

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

DecidedMarch 21, 2002

StatusPublished

This text of 292 A.D.2d 275 (Firstar Equipment Finance v. Jonathan Travel & Tours, 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

Firstar Equipment Finance v. Jonathan Travel & Tours, Inc., 292 A.D.2d 275, 738 N.Y.S.2d 853, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3041 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Jane Solomon, J.), entered on or about April 19, 2001, in an action to determine, inter alia, title to a motor vehicle, in favor of plaintiff, successor to a car leasing company, and against defendants-appellants, creditors of the vehicle’s lessee, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

It appears that “findings of fact and conclusions of law” made by a referee to determine in favor of appellants and against the vehicle’s lessee were, along with a contemporaneous “judgment” also signed by the referee, filed by appellants with the County Clerk but never signed by the latter, and that a judgment roll was also never prepared. The motion court correctly held that such filings did not effect entry of a judgment (see, CPLR 5016 [a]; 5017 [a]). Since no judgment was entered, there was no valid document of execution, and the seizure of the subject vehicle by the City Marshal was a nullity. In any event, even if there were an enforceable judgment, appellants fail to rebut plaintiff’s prima facie showing that its predecessor had leased the vehicle to appellants’ debtor, and that the lessee’s listing as the vehicle’s owner on Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) documents was simply a mistake that DMV immediately corrected once advised of the error by plaintiff shortly after the vehicle was seized. Concur — Andrias, J.P., Buckley, Sullivan, Ellerin and Lemer, JJ.

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

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Jane Solomon, J.), entered on or about April 19, 2001, in an action to determine, inter alia, title to a motor vehicle, in favor of plaintiff, successor to a car leasing company, and against defendants-appellants, creditors of the vehicle’s lessee, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

It appears that “findings of fact and conclusions of law” made by a referee to determine in favor of appellants and against the vehicle’s lessee were, along with a contemporaneous “judgment” also signed by the referee, filed by appellants with the County Clerk but never signed by the latter, and that a judgment roll was also never prepared. The motion court correctly held that such filings did not effect entry of a judgment (see, CPLR 5016 [a]; 5017 [a]). Since no judgment was entered, there was no valid document of execution, and the seizure of the subject vehicle by the City Marshal was a nullity. In any event, even if there were an enforceable judgment, appellants fail to rebut plaintiff’s prima facie showing that its predecessor had leased the vehicle to appellants’ debtor, and that the lessee’s listing as the vehicle’s owner on Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) documents was simply a mistake that DMV immediately corrected once advised of the error by plaintiff shortly after the vehicle was seized. Concur — Andrias, J.P., Buckley, Sullivan, Ellerin and Lemer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

292 A.D.2d 275, 738 N.Y.S.2d 853, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3041, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/firstar-equipment-finance-v-jonathan-travel-tours-inc-nyappdiv-2002.