National Bank of Windham v. Milroy Chevrolet, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

National Bank of Windham v. Milroy Chevrolet, Inc.

29 A.D.2d 1019, 289 N.Y.S.2d 464, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4141

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

DecidedApril 29, 1968

StatusPublished

This text of 29 A.D.2d 1019 (National Bank of Windham v. Milroy Chevrolet, 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

National Bank of Windham v. Milroy Chevrolet, Inc., 29 A.D.2d 1019, 289 N.Y.S.2d 464, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4141 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

Herlihy, J. P.

Appeal from a judgment in favor of the plaintiff following a trial without a jury. In July, 1963 the plaintiff bank loaned an automobile dealer $3,000 as evidenced by a note which was secured by a chattel mortgage on two automobiles. In early October the plaintiff and the automobile dealer mutually agreed to substitute the automobile here in question — a Chevrolet Corvette Stingray — for the existing security and a duly executed chattel mortgage was thereupon filed in the Town Clerk’s office on October 17, which is not in issue. On October 21 the automobile dealer, apparently being in serious financial difficulty, and at the request of the defendant, conveyed the said automobile to it with the admonition that “all I [automobile dealer] had was a little equity in this ear”. The automobile dealer thereafter defaulted on the payment of the loan to the plaintiff and the present action was commenced to secure. the return of the said automobile, or in the alternative, its value. The defendant at the trial contended that at the time of the giving of the chattel mortgage to the plaintiff, the automobile dealer did not own the same, having signed a motor vehicle form stating that the automobile was sold to one Gormley, which knowledge the defendant did not possess at the time of its taking title. The defendant had a search made at the Town Clerk’s office on October 19, and was advised that there were no liens on file. The motor vehicle form allegedly conveying the said automobile from the dealer to Gormley constituted some evidence of a transfer of ownership. However, the said dealer’s uncontradicted testimony at the trial refuted such evidence and the court could and did very properly find that the plaintiff had acquired a valid lien on the said automobile prior to any claim on the part of the defendant. Judgment affirmed, with costs. Herlihy, J. P., Reynolds, Aulisi, Staley, Jr., and Gabrielli, JJ., concur in memorandum decision by Herlihy, J. P.

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

Herlihy, J. P.

Appeal from a judgment in favor of the plaintiff following a trial without a jury. In July, 1963 the plaintiff bank loaned an automobile dealer $3,000 as evidenced by a note which was secured by a chattel mortgage on two automobiles. In early October the plaintiff and the automobile dealer mutually agreed to substitute the automobile here in question — a Chevrolet Corvette Stingray — for the existing security and a duly executed chattel mortgage was thereupon filed in the Town Clerk’s office on October 17, which is not in issue. On October 21 the automobile dealer, apparently being in serious financial difficulty, and at the request of the defendant, conveyed the said automobile to it with the admonition that “all I [automobile dealer] had was a little equity in this ear”. The automobile dealer thereafter defaulted on the payment of the loan to the plaintiff and the present action was commenced to secure. the return of the said automobile, or in the alternative, its value. The defendant at the trial contended that at the time of the giving of the chattel mortgage to the plaintiff, the automobile dealer did not own the same, having signed a motor vehicle form stating that the automobile was sold to one Gormley, which knowledge the defendant did not possess at the time of its taking title. The defendant had a search made at the Town Clerk’s office on October 19, and was advised that there were no liens on file. The motor vehicle form allegedly conveying the said automobile from the dealer to Gormley constituted some evidence of a transfer of ownership. However, the said dealer’s uncontradicted testimony at the trial refuted such evidence and the court could and did very properly find that the plaintiff had acquired a valid lien on the said automobile prior to any claim on the part of the defendant. Judgment affirmed, with costs. Herlihy, J. P., Reynolds, Aulisi, Staley, Jr., and Gabrielli, JJ., concur in memorandum decision by Herlihy, J. P.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

29 A.D.2d 1019, 289 N.Y.S.2d 464, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4141, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/national-bank-of-windham-v-milroy-chevrolet-inc-nyappdiv-1968.