DECISION AND ORDER The trial of the above matter was held on September 25, 2024 after a lengthy pretrial conference. Claimant, Benjamin Baker, appeared self-represented and Defendant, Derrick Bennett appeared self-represented. Defendant Victory Mitsubishi appeared by counsel Labonte Law Group, PLLC by Londyn Zografakis, Esq and defendant witness. Claimant sues for $3,000 for breach of contract, and failure to provide repairs. At trial, claimant testified he purchased a used Mercedes GLA 2021 vehicle from defendant Victory Mitsubishi on April 30, 2022 through its agent, defendant Derrick Bennet and was duped and defrauded into buying the car. Claimant specially disputes the contract price, interest rate and add-ons. He paid a $1,000 downpayment and obtained financing from Banco Santander with assistance of Victory Mitsubishi after almost a full day of negotiation. The interest rate was 24.9 percent, and monthly payments were $1,091 which he did not agree to. He returned the vehicle to defendant after having made eight payments on the vehicle with monthly interest of $376. He was promised new tires on the vehicle. Defendant Bennett testified he was employed as a salesperson for Defendant Victory Mitsubishi and acted as agent when he negotiated the subject contract with claimant. Defendant Bennett testified and admitted that obtained approval from his supervisor to make this deal which included a promise of new tires. However, the new tires were never provided to claimant. Claimant produced a copy of the NYS DMV title issued in his name along with 2 estimates for new tires and invoices and payments made on the loan. Claimant testified he plans to proceed with a complaint for investigation against defendants and Banco Santander regarding the charges and interest rates. Defendant Victory Mitsubishi testified by its witness, customer service representative that claimant signed a contract along with a co-purchaser. There was no promise of new tires, and that claimant had to come in within 30 days of purchase to make a claim. She searched records and there was no “We Owe” form made to claimant. She testified that defendant came in personally after the purchase and she also spoke with him on the telephone when she tried to calm him down as he was very upset with the manner in which the deal was done and how he was treated. A photocopy of the contract was submitted by defendant Mitsubishi and admitted in evidence with no objection by claimant. According to the “retail purchase agreement/bill of sale, the pertinent information is as follows: purchase price was $21,550., tire and wheel $2,195.; converter pro 5 yr $2,495.; appearance pro $3,495.; lojack 5 yr $3,000, Drive care $4,500 for total taxable selling price of $37,325. Sales tax $3,312.50, $175. for dealer application processing fee, $37. Inspection fee, $250. Registration fee estimate. Total amount due $41,099.59 less deposit of $1,000; amount to be financed $40,099.50 with payment terms of 72 @ $1,091.17. According to the invoices submitted by claimant, interest of $376. per month was charged. In response to claimant’s allegation that the interest rate was illegal, defense counsel argued the interest rate of 24.9 percent was “legal” for a retail installment contract. However, no witness or caselaw was presented. There was also no testimony or explanation concerning the other charges listed on the retail purchase agreement. In addition, no documents indicating the disclosure of purchase price and interest rate were submitted. While the subject contract is ostensibly between claimant auto buyer and defendant Victory Mitsubishi, the courts have recognized the need to carefully review and scrutinize purported retail instalment contracts. (See, e.g., Sheffield Commercial Corp. v. Clemente, 792 F.2d 282, 286 [2d Cir. 1986] (noting “the strong public interest in enforcement of the (Motor Vehicle Retail Instalment Sales) Act”]). This includes scrutiny to guard against the use of shams or cut-outs, as “[w]hile retail installment contracts are transferable that presumes that the original transaction between the buyer and seller is a real payment agreement between those parties and not merely a vehicle for a third-party financing company to avoid the usury laws.” (Capitol Discount Corp. v. Rivera, 38 Misc 3d 1226[A], *6, 2013 WL 692940 [Civ. Ct., Kings Co. 2013]). Since the car was returned, and the interest is charged by Banco Santander, a non-party, the issue and relief as to whether the interest rate is usurious pursuant to G.O.L. Section 5-511 is not properly before this Court. Based on credible evidence and testimony, Claimant proved its prima facie case against defendant. Accordingly it is hereby, ORDERED, Judgment is awarded to Claimant, Benjamin Baker, in the amount of $3,000 plus interest and costs from 4/30/22 against defendant Victory Mitsubishi; and it is further ORDERED, Claimant’s action against defendant Derek Bennett is Dismissed; and it is further ORDERED, Defendant shall serve a copy of this Order with Notice of Entry within twenty (20) days and file proof of service with the Court. This constitutes the Decision and Order of the Court. Dated: September 26, 2024
