From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Allbright v. National Grange Mutual Ins. Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Jan 27, 1984
99 A.D.2d 651 (N.Y. App. Div. 1984)

Opinion

January 27, 1984

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Oneida County, Miller, J.

Present — Dillon, P.J., Callahan, Doerr, Denman and Moule, JJ.


Order unanimously modified and, as modified, affirmed, with costs to plaintiff, in accordance with the following memorandum: Plaintiff's cross motion for summary judgment was properly denied, but the court erred insofar as it dismissed plaintiff's cause of action against defendant Gee Chevrolet, Inc. As a registered dealer in motor vehicles, Gee had authority to issue a temporary registration for the vehicle being sold to plaintiff (Vehicle and Traffic Law, § 420, subd 7), but there was no duty to do so. However, once it undertook this responsibility it was obligated to use reasonable care to see that plaintiff's interests were properly protected ( Dalrymple v Shults Chevrolet, 51 A.D.2d 884, aff'd. 41 N.Y.2d 957; see, also, Riedman Agency v Meaott Constr. Corp., 90 A.D.2d 963, 964, app. dsmd. 58 N.Y.2d 824). Temporary registration of a motor vehicle cannot be accomplished unless the buyer has "another vehicle duly registered" (Vehicle and Traffic Law, § 420, subd 7). Plaintiff's trade-in car was not "duly registered" since the insurance had lapsed, thereby rendering the registration void by operation of law (Vehicle and Traffic Law, § 312, subd 1). Before issuing a temporary registration, Gee had a duty to ascertain that plaintiff's trade-in vehicle was duly registered, meaning that plaintiff could produce a valid registration and insurance card. The examinations before trial raise a question of fact as to whether Gee ever asked plaintiff for proof of insurance on the trade-in vehicle. The failure to do so could be found by the fact finder as the failure to use due care under the circumstances and the proximate cause of plaintiff's financial loss. Plaintiff's conduct in driving the trade-in vehicle without insurance and with license plates that had become invalid by operation of law does not bar this action against Gee, but merely creates a question of fact with respect to plaintiff's comparative negligence. Plaintiff's causes of action against the other defendants were properly dismissed.


Summaries of

Allbright v. National Grange Mutual Ins. Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Jan 27, 1984
99 A.D.2d 651 (N.Y. App. Div. 1984)
Case details for

Allbright v. National Grange Mutual Ins. Co.

Case Details

Full title:TIMOTHY ALLBRIGHT, Appellant, v. NATIONAL GRANGE MUTUAL INSURANCE CO. et…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department

Date published: Jan 27, 1984

Citations

99 A.D.2d 651 (N.Y. App. Div. 1984)

Citing Cases

Taylor v. Botnick Motor Corp.

To be duly registered, there must be proof of financial security, evidenced by, insofar as relevant here, an…

McCabe v. Competition Imports

om denying ownership of a vehicle (see Taylor v. Botnick Motor Corp., 146 A.D.2d 81, 85; Jamison v. Walker,…