Kante v All Taxi
Annotate this CaseDecided on July 29, 2010
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
APPELLATE TERM: 2nd, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : PESCE, P.J., GOLIA and RIOS, JJ
2008-552 Q C.
Djime Kante, Respondent,
against
All Taxi, Appellant.
Appeal from a judgment of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County
(Thomas D. Raffaele, J.), entered March 15, 2007. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, awarded
plaintiff the principal sum of $17,866.
ORDERED that the judgment is reversed without costs and the matter is remitted to the Civil Court for a new trial.
Plaintiff Djime Kante worked as a taxi driver, and defendant All Taxi operated a business in which, among other things, it represented taxi medallion owners, acting as an intermediary between such owners and taxi drivers who leased the medallions, and also sold vehicles to taxi drivers. On November 21, 2003, the parties entered into a written contract entitled, "Medallion Lease Taxicab Purchase Contract." Pursuant to this agreement, plaintiff initially paid $1,000 towards the $21,000 purchase price of a used taxicab, and also paid $650 as a deposit on the lease of a taxi medallion which belonged to one Jean Dorzin. The parties' contract called for plaintiff to make 104 payments to defendant towards the purchase of the vehicle, and provided that title thereto would be transferred to plaintiff after he completed those payments. The evidence at trial indicated that the taxi which plaintiff was purchasing under the contract had previously belonged to Dorzin, and that defendant had purchased the taxi from Dorzin before contracting to sell it to plaintiff. After entering into the contract, plaintiff made weekly payments to defendant of $246, which payments included interest and principal on the purchase of the taxi, and also made weekly payments to defendant for the lease of the taxi medallion.
In October 2004, defendant notified plaintiff that Dorzin wanted the medallion back. This possibility was contemplated by the contract between plaintiff and defendant, as the contract provided that, in such case, plaintiff was required to make the taxi available to defendant for the purpose of exchanging the leased medallion, and further stated that defendant did not have to [*2]credit plaintiff for any down time which might result from a medallion exchange. The agreement did not require plaintiff to surrender his interest in the taxi.
According to plaintiff, after defendant told him that Dorzin wanted his medallion back, Dorzin inspected the taxi and told plaintiff that he wanted it as well. It is undisputed that, at the time, plaintiff had paid a total of $11,824, which included payments of both principal and interest, to defendant towards the purchase of the taxi. After speaking with Dorzin, plaintiff went to defendant's office to ascertain the situation. It was evening, and defendant's office was closed. Plaintiff told Dorzin he trusted him, and gave him the taxi and its keys. The next day, defendant told plaintiff that Dorzin had paid defendant the balance owed on the taxi and that title to the taxi had been transferred to Dorzin. Defendant refused plaintiff's demand that he be reimbursed for his investment in the vehicle.
Plaintiff commenced the instant suit seeking the sum of $25,000. After a nonjury trial, the Civil Court concluded that the contract allowed for repossession and resale of the taxi only in the event of a default by the purchaser, that plaintiff had not defaulted under any provisions of the parties' agreement, and that by selling the taxi to Dorzin, defendant had converted the taxi. On March 15, 2007, judgment was entered against defendant in the principal sum of $17,866.
Plaintiff voluntarily turned over possession of the taxi and its keys to Dorzin, and then sought damages from defendant based on his rights under the parties' agreement. For a cause of action in conversion to lie, the duty breached must spring from circumstances extraneous to the contract; wrongfully withholding money due pursuant to a contractual relationship constitutes a breach of the contractual relationship, not conversion (see D'Ambrosio v Engel, 292 AD2d 564 [2002]). The Civil Court's finding that defendant had converted the taxi was thus erroneous.
The circumstances surrounding the transfer of the taxi and its keys from plaintiff to Dorzin cannot be determined from the record before us. If plaintiff in fact assigned to Dorzin his contractual right to obtain full title to the taxi upon payment to defendant of the balance due for its purchase, plaintiff had no cause of action against defendant, and the instant case should be dismissed. Plaintiff's rights, if any, would then lie against Dorzin. In the absence of such an assignment, and if plaintiff can establish that he was not in default of the "Medallion Lease Taxicab Purchase Contract," plaintiff may well have a cause of action against defendant for terminating plaintiff's contractual rights to the vehicle. Accordingly, the judgment is reversed and the matter remitted to the Civil Court for a new trial for further development of the facts. In view of the foregoing, we do not pass upon the propriety of the amount the Civil Court awarded plaintiff.
Pesce, P.J., Golia and Rios, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: July 29, 2010
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.
