General Motors Acceptance Corp. v. Capitol Ford-Mercury, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

General Motors Acceptance Corp. v. Capitol Ford-Mercury, Inc.

38 A.D.2d 984, 329 N.Y.S.2d 288, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5242

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

DecidedMarch 1, 1972

StatusPublished

This text of 38 A.D.2d 984 (General Motors Acceptance Corp. v. Capitol Ford-Mercury, 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

General Motors Acceptance Corp. v. Capitol Ford-Mercury, Inc., 38 A.D.2d 984, 329 N.Y.S.2d 288, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5242 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from an order of Supreme Court, entered August 24, 1971 in Saratoga County, which granted summary judgment to respondent. This is an action in replevin to recover a 1970 GMAC %-ton [985]*985truck purchased by appellant, a dealer in new and used cars, from one McEachron on October 15, 1970. Respondent had previously financed McEaehron’s purchase of the track and filed a financing statement pursuant to section 9-402 of the Uniform Commercial Code. From an examination of the papers submitted it appears that there is a question of fact as to whether McEachron was in the business of selling automobiles at the time of the sale to appellant. (Uniform Commercial Code, § 1-201, subd. [9].) A letter dated May 20, 1971 from the New York State Department of Motor Vehicles states that McEachron was registered as a dealer from January 1, 1970 through December 31, 1970. A second letter dated June 8, 1971 from the same department states that McEachron’s dealer license expired December 31, 1970, but he surrendered one set of dealer plates and his MV 50 and MV 53 books on August 25, 1970. As there are issues of fact, summary judgment may not be granted. Order reversed, on the law, and motion denied, without costs. Herlihy, P. J., Staley, Jr., Cooke, Sweeney and Simons, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal from an order of Supreme Court, entered August 24, 1971 in Saratoga County, which granted summary judgment to respondent. This is an action in replevin to recover a 1970 GMAC %-ton [985]*985truck purchased by appellant, a dealer in new and used cars, from one McEachron on October 15, 1970. Respondent had previously financed McEaehron’s purchase of the track and filed a financing statement pursuant to section 9-402 of the Uniform Commercial Code. From an examination of the papers submitted it appears that there is a question of fact as to whether McEachron was in the business of selling automobiles at the time of the sale to appellant. (Uniform Commercial Code, § 1-201, subd. [9].) A letter dated May 20, 1971 from the New York State Department of Motor Vehicles states that McEachron was registered as a dealer from January 1, 1970 through December 31, 1970. A second letter dated June 8, 1971 from the same department states that McEachron’s dealer license expired December 31, 1970, but he surrendered one set of dealer plates and his MV 50 and MV 53 books on August 25, 1970. As there are issues of fact, summary judgment may not be granted. Order reversed, on the law, and motion denied, without costs. Herlihy, P. J., Staley, Jr., Cooke, Sweeney and Simons, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

38 A.D.2d 984, 329 N.Y.S.2d 288, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5242, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/general-motors-acceptance-corp-v-capitol-ford-mercury-inc-nyappdiv-1972.