Preview:

[*1]


Decided on May 6, 2009
Poughkeepsie City Ct

SC-08-2816
To:Anthony Tedeschi Plaintiff, pro se 35 Cayman Court Poughkeepsie, NY 12603 Charles Crocker Defendant, pro se 359 Sylvan Lake Road
Hopewell Junction, NY 12533
Katherine A. Moloney, J.
Plaintiff is suing for $5,000.00, which represents the down payment given to the defendant to purchase a $27,000.00 1934 Ford Coupe vehicle. Both parties were represented pro se. A small claims trial was held on February 23, 2009. The evidence presented to this Court included testimony from the plaintiff, Anthony Tedeschi, the plaintiff's brother, James Tedeschi, the defendant, Charles Crocker, as well as several exhibits, including photographs of the 1934 show car that is the subject of this lawsuit. Having duly deliberated upon the facts and proceedings held hereinbefore, the Court finds as follows:
Facts and Arguments
The salient facts are largely undisputed in this case. The parties know each other from a prior business agreement involving the sale of another vehicle, which sale proved to be a mutually successful business exchange. The instant matter involves the sale of an old show car. The defendant was selling a 1934 Ford Coupe show car. The plaintiff agreed to purchase the car from the defendant for $27,000.00. . The plaintiff signed a notarized contract, dated September 15, 2005, agreeing to purchase the car from the defendant under the following terms, as drafted by the plaintiff:
"I Anthony Tedeschi Accepts ( All Responsibilities) And Payments For 1930
Ford Coupe SR VIN (SK8743PA) From Owner Chuck Crocker Until Paid In Full.
Payments Will Be Made Monthly For A Period Of 6 To 9 Months Until Debt
Of ($27,000 Thousand) Is Paid In Full With No Interist [sic]. I Also
Take ( All ) Responsibilites Of Said Vehicle Until Paid In Full. Upon
Completion Of Payments, Title And Ownership Of Said Vehicle Will Be Legally Tuned [sic] Over To Anthony Tedeschi During This Period Of
Transaction, If A Sitvation [sic] Should Arise Chuck Crocker Concerning
Death Or Incapacitation, Balance of Debt At That Time Shall Be Paid As
Of Stated Contract. To Owner Or Beneficary [sic]. There After Upon
Completion Of Payments I Anthony Tedeschi Will Recieve [sic] All Legal
Documents Of Said Vehicle."
The contract promised that the plaintiff would have the car fully paid within nine months. [*2]The plaintiff signed and faxed the contract to the defendant on September 15, 2005. After receiving the contract, the defendant delivered the car to the plaintiff prior to receiving the first installment payment. The car was delivered to the plaintiff in Florida on or about September 22, 2005. On March 3, 2006, the plaintiff sent the defendant the first installment check in the amount of $5,000.00 towards the price of the car. Everything was copacetic between the parties until such time that the plaintiff suffered some unexpected and serious medical issues, undergoing two separate back surgeries. Plaintiff's health hindered his ability to work and as a result, he defaulted on the payments, breaching the terms of the contract.
In fact, after the $5,000.00 payment, plaintiff made no further payments on the car. Consistent with the terms of the agreement, the title to the car was never transferred from the defendant to the plaintiff because payment was never fully made. Despite the default, the car remained in the plaintiff's possession for approximately fifteen (15) months (from September 2005 through December 28, 2006). During the time that the car was in the plaintiff's possession, the plaintiff drove the car with dealer plates on it and got into a car accident causing damage to the vehicle. The amount of damage to the car is disputed.
In December 2006, the plaintiff decided to return to New York because he needed familial support to help him tend to his health. In learning of plaintiff's intended return to New York, the defendant asked that the plaintiff bring the car back to New York with him - as it would just "make him feel better" according to the plaintiff. The plaintiff complied, and on December 28, 2006 the plaintiff returned the car to the defendant. Contemporaneous with the medical issues the plaintiff was dealing with, was a cancer diagnosis the defendant was battling. According to the defendant, his own health issues imposed financial straits for which he could no longer tolerate the plaintiff's failure to make payments on the car.
In March or April 2007, approximately four (4) months after the car was returned to the defendant, the defendant sold the car to someone else. The defendant did not repair the damage that arose out of the accident plaintiff had with the car. As such, with the accompanying damage, the sale price of the car was reduced by $10,000.00, and the car was sold for $17,000.00.
The dispute upon which this lawsuit arises is based upon whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the $5,000.00 down payment on the car, even though the car was in the plaintiff's possession for over one year. The plaintiff argues that in spite of his default in payments on the car, he is entitled to recover the down payment, for he never breached the terms of the contract since the defendant verbally told him that he could take as long as he needed to pay him the outstanding balance of $22,000.00. The plaintiff's brother, James Tedeschi, corroborates this claim when he testified that the defendant expressed no time limits to pay off the car. The plaintiff describes an amiable relationship with the defendant, with the parties speaking several times per week on the phone. The plaintiff claims that the news of the defendant selling the car to another buyer, came to him unexpectedly. Finally, the plaintiff contends that he would have never returned the car to the defendant if he had known that the defendant intended to keep the $5,000.00 down payment.
The defendant flatly disputes the claim that the parties orally agreed to additional terms to the contract, arguing that since he was experiencing medical issues of his own and needed the money to pay his own bills, he would not have agreed to give the plaintiff an open-ended time frame to pay off the remaining $22,000.00 plaintiff owed on the car. In contrast to the plaintiff's description of their relationship, is the defendant's description, who described a sharp decline in the relationship [*3]after the plaintiff defaulted on the car payments. The defendant argues that he is entitled to keep the down payment since the plaintiff defaulted in making timely monthly payments on the car and by damaging the car, which devalued it in resale by $10,000.00.
As noted above, the parties dispute the amount of damage to the car as a result of the plaintiff's car accident and they dispute whether there was damage to the car in transporting the car on a flatbed from Florida.
Legal Analysis and Determination
While the plaintiff claims that the defendant orally agreed to waive the time frames to pay him

the remaining $22,000.00, the defendant flatly disputes this. Since the parties dispute whether the terms of the agreement were orally amended, the Court can not credit the oral agreement, as testified to by the plaintiff and his brother. Rather, the written agreement is the only contract entered into between the parties that this Court finds to be enforceable.
This is because the general rule of law is that where the parties have reduced their agreement to writing, the parole evidence rule excludes evidence of any prior oral or written agreement or of any contemporaneous oral agreement when offered to contradict, vary, add to, or subtract from the terms of the writing. Marine Midland Bank v. Thurlow, 53 NY2d 381, 387(1981); Thomas v. Scutt, 127 NY 133 (1891). See, WWW Associates v. Giancontieri, 77 NY2d 157(1990); Restatement (Second) of Contracts

Download 2009_51095.pdf

New York Law