Prince v Lexus Fin. Servs.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Prince v Lexus Fin. Servs. 2012 NY Slip Op 30433(U) February 6, 2012 Supreme Court, Nassau County Docket Number: 14163/11 Judge: Michele M. Woodard Republished from New York State Unified Court System's E-Courts Service. Search E-Courts (http://www.nycourts.gov/ecourts) for any additional information on this case. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. -- --------------- --- ------------- -------------- -- -- ------- ------- -- -- --- - )( -------------------------------------------------------------------------)( [* 1] SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NASSAU PAMELA S. PRICE and 3 & 6 LLC C. MICHELE M. WOODARD Plaintiffs TRIAL/IAS Par 08 Index No. : 14163/11 Motion Seq. Nos. : 01, 02 & 03 -against- LEXUS FINANCIAL SERVICES, LEXUS OF MANHATTAN , TOYOTA FINANCIAL SERVICES and BLESSED REPOSSESSION & RECOVERY , INC. DECISION AND ORDER Defendants. Papers Read on this Motion: Plaintiffs ' Order to Show Cause Defendants Le)(us Financial Services and Toyota Financial Services ' Notice of Cross- Motion Defendant Le)(us of Manattan s Notice of Motion Plaintiffs ' Memorandum of Law Defendant Le)(us of Manattan s Affirmation in Oppositi Plaintiffs ' Affirmation in Opposition Defendants Le)(us Financial Services and Toyota Financial Services ' Memorandum of Law Plaintiffs Reply Affirmation In motion sequence number one , plaintiffs Pamela S. Prince and 3 & 6 LLC move for an order pursuant to CPLR 6311 inter alia directing the defendants Lexus Financial Service , Le)(us of Manatt, Toyota Financial Services and Blessed Repossession & Recovery, Inc. to return a 2010 Le)(us LX 570 sports utility vehicle (" SUV" ) Vehicle Identification Number JTJHY7AX3A4045103 to the plaintiffs and an award of attorney s fees incurred in this action. In motion sequence numbers two and three , defendant Le)(us Financial Services and Toyota Financial Services and defendant Le)(us of Manattan respectively cross move for an order pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(I), (7) dismissing the complaint against them. The plaintiffs in this action seek to recover their 2010 Le)(us LX 570 SUV which was repossessed by the defendants on September 26 , 2011. They have advanced causes of action sounding [* 2] in replevin , conversion and declaratory judgment. In their complaint , the plaintiffs allege that in November 2009 Pamela Prince s son Matthew Prince was contacted by Rick Cohen , an owner of Nort Shore Manor Group, regarding an interest in purchasing a 2010 Le)(us 570 SUV. Matthew Prince had successfully dealt with Rick Cohen for appro)(imately ten years leasing and purchasing vehicles and had referred him to family and friends. In December 2009 , Cohen allegedly proposed sellng Matthew a2010 Lexus LX 570 SUV in e)(change for his 2006 Le)(us 470 and $50 000. To that end , on December 24 2009 , the plaintiff3 & 6 LLC paid $50 000 via check to Le)(us of Manattan. The plaintiffs allege that on March 26 , 2010 , they surendered their 2006 Le)(us 470 to North Shore Motor Group and paid an additional $9 000 in e)(change for the 20 I 0 Le)(us LX 570 SUV they took possession of the vehicle. In their complaint , the plaintiffs allege that in Januar 2011 , they were contacted by one of the defendants and advised that they had been the victims of identify theft by Cohen. More specifically, they leared that they were victims of a scheme whereby Cohen accepted payments for vehicles and submitted forged paperwork to procure a loan on the vehicles unbeknownst to the buyers. The 2010 Le)(us LX 570 SUV had been titled in 3 & 6 LLC' s name at 40 Fo)( Hollow Road on November 17 2010. The Certificate of Title reflects one recorded lien held by Toyota Motor Credit Corp. The Retail Certificate of Sale dated March 26 , 2010 reflects a sale by Le)(us of Manattan to 3 & 6 LLC at 1287B Deer Park Avenue , North Babylon. A Retail Installment Contract in 3 & 6 LLC and Pamela Prince s name bearng Pamela Prince s purported signatue reflects that the vehicle had been financed. Le)(us of Manattan is listed as the creditor. The plaintiffs deny knowing about a Retail Installment Contract , let alone e)(ecuting one , and adamantly maintain that they paid for the vehicle in full. In that contract , the borrowers afforded Le)(us of Manattan a security interest in the 2010 Le)(us LX 570 SUV. The Retail Installment Contract was assigned byLe)(us of Manattan to the defendants Le)(us Financial Services and Toyota Financial Services. In addition , a co-signer s notice identifying 3 [* 3] & 6 LLC as the debtor under a Retail Installment Contract in the amount of $1 04 882.40; a Certified Limited Liability Company Resolution and Incumbency Certificate to Lease or Finance authorizing 3 & 6 LLC to finance a vehicle in an amount not to e)(ceed $104 882.40 from Le)(us of Manhattan and its assignee Toyota Motor Credit Corporation , Toyota Lease Trust or Lexus Financial Services; and , a Toyota Motor Insurance Agency Guaranteed Auto Protection Program Notice of Lessee Liability for GAP Amount-New York all purortedly bear Pamela Prince s signature , too. The defendants Le)(us Financial Services and Toyota Financial Services note the loan was assigned by Le)(us of Manattan to them on March 26 , 2010 , at which time they deny having had any knowledge of any fraud , thereby allegedly acquiring a valid lien on the 2010 Le)(us LX 570 SUV. In fact , the title lists Toyota Motor Credit Corp. , a unit of these defendants ' companies , as a lienholder , as does a Notice of Recorded Lien. Additionally, a Certificate of Insurance from Allstate dated March 26 2010 lists Le)(us Financial Services as a lienholder. These reflected liens were never challenged by the plaintiffs prior to the repossession of their 2010 Le)(us 570 LX SUV. The defendants Le)(us Financial Services and Toyota Financial Services maintain that the loan was defaulted on May 25 , 2010 and that they leared from Cohen s attorney on August 18 2010 of fraudulent conduct by Cohen. In addition Le)(us of Manattan notes that the Vehicle Registration Title Application for the vehicle which was allegedly signed by Pamela Prince lists Toyota Motor Credit Corp. as a lienholder. Le)(us Financial Services and Toyota Financial Services have submitted proof of receipt by Le)(us of Manattan of $87 179. 74 from them. The plaintiffs allege that at defendants ' request , they completed a fraud claim fOff. The plaintiffs further allege that the defendant Blessed Repossession & Recovery, Inc. repossessed their 2010 Lexus 570 SUV on September 26 , 2011 , and that the defendants had refused to return their vehicle without court intervention. Joseph Conway, the attorney in the U. S. Attorney s Offce s criminal investigation , has attested [* 4] that (i)t is (his) understanding that Cohen has submitted documentation to Le)(us Financial Services that purports to contain the signature of Pamela Prince wherein she allegedly obtained financing for a vehicle that plaintiffs purchased from North Shore Auto Group. The document is a Retail Installment Contract. Significantly, however , Cohen has admitted that he forged Pamela Prince s name on the Retail Installment Contract that he submitted to Le)(us Financial Services relating to plaintiffs ' purchase. Based on the likelihood of the plaintiffs success on the merits and hardship in not having the vehicle , and balancing of the equities , the Court granted a Preliminar Injunction requiring the defendants ' retu of the 2010 Le)(us LX 570 SUV to the plaintiffs was granted on October 8 , 2011 after oral argument , subject to the plaintiff maintaining insurance and not encumbering the vehicle. The plaintiffs ' application for attorney s fees is denied. Hedaya Home Fashions Inc. v American Motorists Ins. Co. 12 AD3d 639 (2d Dept 2004) in the absence of e)(plicit statutory or contractual authority. A right to an award of an attorney s fee , litigation costs , and e)(penses will not be inferred. In the case at bar , the plaintiff has not submitted an agreement between the paries assenting to attorney s fees in the event that litigation ensued , resulting in the denial of the request. The defendant Le)(us Financial Services , Toyota Financial Services and Le)(us of Manhattan allege that the aforementioned documents conclusively establish that they were also victims of Cohen fraudulent conduct and seek dismissal of the complaint against them on that ground pursuant to CPLR ~3211(a)(1), (7). Under CPLR ~3211(a)(7), the pleadings are afforded a liberal construction and accorded the benefit of every possible favorable inference. ~3026; Rovello v Orofino Realty Co. Leon v Martinez 84 NY2d 83 (1994); see also CPLR 40 NY2d 633 , 634 (1976). A " motion to dismiss on the ground that the action is bared by documenta evidence. .. may be appropriately granted only where the documentar evidence utterly refutes plaintiffs defense as a matter oflaw. factual allegations , (and) conclusively establishing a Leon v Martinez, supra at p. 88. The documentar evidence must " flatly [* 5] KSW Mechanical Services, Inc. v Wills of New York 63 AD3d 411 contradict" the plaintiffs claims. (1 st Dept 2009). Neither the plaintiffs nor the defendants have conclusively established who prevails where the interests of a bona fide lender with a lien conflct. bona fide purchaser for value and the interests of a While the Certificate of Title dated November 17 2010 and the Notice of Recorded Lien identify Toyota Motor Credit Corp. as a lienholder on the subject vehicle and the Certificate of Insurance lists Lexus Financial Services as a lienholder , at this juncture , standing alone , those documents do not require dismissal of the complaint. CPLR ~3212(f). Pamela Prince adamantly denies knowledge of the supporting documents let alone e)(ecuting them. These denials give rise to an issue of fact regarding the validity of the ' documents relied on by the defendants in seeking dismissal of the See, Adler v 20/20 Cos. 82 AD3d 918 (2d Dept 2011), complaint pursuant to CPLR ~3211(a)(1). citing Siddiqui v Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. 255 AD2d (3 Davis v Lancaster 30 Misc 3d 885 Title Ins. Co. 29 Misc 3d 136(A) (N. Y. Sup. App. Term 2010); (Supreme Court Broil see also, Figueroa v Stewart Dept 1999); County 2010). As such , the defendants ' motions are ORDERED , that the paries appear in DCM for a Preliminar denied. It is hereby Conference on Februar 21 2012 , at 9:30 a. This constitutes the Decision and Order of the Cour. DATED: Februar 6 , 2012 Mineola, N. Y. 11501 ENTER: HON. MICHELE M. WOODARD F:\DECISION - DISMISS\Prince v Lexus Financial Svs MLP. wpd ENTERED FEB 14 2012 NASSAU COUNTY COUNTY CLERK' S OFftCE

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.