Tavoulareas v. Steven Kessler Motor Cars, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Tavoulareas v. Steven Kessler Motor Cars, Inc.

259 A.D.2d 262, 686 N.Y.S.2d 17, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2310

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

DecidedMarch 2, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 259 A.D.2d 262 (Tavoulareas v. Steven Kessler Motor Cars, 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

Tavoulareas v. Steven Kessler Motor Cars, Inc., 259 A.D.2d 262, 686 N.Y.S.2d 17, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2310 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Lorraine Miller, J.), entered August 13, 1998, which, inter alia, granted defendants’, McCann and Stauffer, motions for summary judgment only in part, unanimously modified, on the law, to dismiss the remainder of the complaint as against them, and otherwise affirmed, without costs. The Clerk is directed to enter judg[263]*263ment in favor of defendants McGann and Stauffer dismissing the complaint as against them.

Stauffer and McGann are good faith purchasers under UCC 2-403, and thus cannot be held liable in conversion for not returning the subject automobile. Vehicle and Traffic Law § 2113 and 15 NYCRR 78.40 are inapplicable to the subject automobile, a pre-1972 vehicle (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 2102 [a] [10]), and even if such provisions were applicable, or we were to otherwise find that defendant Motor Cars lacked authority from plaintiff to sign the back of the registration certificate, we would find that Stauffer and McGann each received “voidable title” to the vehicle, and had the right to convey it (see, Ross v Leuci, 194 Mise 345; Green v Arcadia Fin., 174 Misc 2d 411, 413; see also, Coffman Truck Sales v Sackley Cartage Co., 58 Ill App 3d 68, 373 NE2d 1026). We have considered and rejected the parties’ additional claims for affirmative relief. Concur — Nardelli, J. P., Rubin, Mazzarelli and Andrias, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Lorraine Miller, J.), entered August 13, 1998, which, inter alia, granted defendants’, McCann and Stauffer, motions for summary judgment only in part, unanimously modified, on the law, to dismiss the remainder of the complaint as against them, and otherwise affirmed, without costs. The Clerk is directed to enter judg[263]*263ment in favor of defendants McGann and Stauffer dismissing the complaint as against them.

Stauffer and McGann are good faith purchasers under UCC 2-403, and thus cannot be held liable in conversion for not returning the subject automobile. Vehicle and Traffic Law § 2113 and 15 NYCRR 78.40 are inapplicable to the subject automobile, a pre-1972 vehicle (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 2102 [a] [10]), and even if such provisions were applicable, or we were to otherwise find that defendant Motor Cars lacked authority from plaintiff to sign the back of the registration certificate, we would find that Stauffer and McGann each received “voidable title” to the vehicle, and had the right to convey it (see, Ross v Leuci, 194 Mise 345; Green v Arcadia Fin., 174 Misc 2d 411, 413; see also, Coffman Truck Sales v Sackley Cartage Co., 58 Ill App 3d 68, 373 NE2d 1026). We have considered and rejected the parties’ additional claims for affirmative relief. Concur — Nardelli, J. P., Rubin, Mazzarelli and Andrias, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

259 A.D.2d 262, 686 N.Y.S.2d 17, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2310, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tavoulareas-v-steven-kessler-motor-cars-inc-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack