14-1972

Financial Federal Credit Inc. v. Klug

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

SUMMARY ORDER

RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED

ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE

PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A

DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN

ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST

SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.

1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals

2 for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United

3 States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York,

on the 19th 4 day of March, two thousand fifteen.

5

6 PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS,

7 RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR.,

8 Circuit Judges,

9 GARY L. SHARPE,

District Judge.* 10

11 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X

12 Financial Federal Credit Inc., 

13 Plaintiff-Appellant,

14

15 -v.- 14-1972

16

17 Ramar Crane Services, LLC, Ramar Steel

18 Sales, Inc., Ramar Steel Erectors,

19 Inc.,

Defendants-Appellees.** 20

21 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X

* Chief Judge Gary L. Sharpe, of the United States District

Court for the Northern District of New York, sitting by

designation.

** The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to amend the

official caption in this case to conform with the caption above.

1
1 FOR APPELLANT: JONATHAN D. DEILY (with Stacey

2 M. Metro & Mark D. Glastetter,

3 on the brief), Deily &

4 Glastetter, LLP, Albany, New

5 York.

6

7 FOR APPELLEES: KEVIN S. COOMAN, McConville,

8 Considine, Cooman & Morin, P.C.,

9 Rochester, New York.

10

11 Appeal from a judgment of the United States District

12 Court for the Western District of New York (Larimer, J.).

13

14 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED

15 AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court be

16 AFFIRMED. 

17

18 Plaintiff Financial Federal Credit Inc. (“FFCI”)

19 appeals from the judgment of the United States District

20 Court for the Western District of New York (Larimer, J.),

21 granting summary judgment in favor of defendants Ramar Crane

22 Services, LLC, Ramar Steel Sales, Inc., and Ramar Steel

23 Erectors, Inc. (collectively, “Ramar”). We assume the

24 parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the

25 procedural history, and the issues presented for review.

26

27 We review a district court’s grant of summary judgment

28 de novo, construing all evidence in the manner most

29 favorable to the nonmoving party. See Janes v. Triborough

30 Bridge & Tunnel Auth., 774 F.3d 1052, 1054 (2d Cir. 2014).

31

32 1. The Liebherr crane: as the district court

33 concluded, Ramar qualifies as a buyer in the ordinary course

34 under section 1-201(9) of the New York Uniform Commercial

Code.1 35 Ramar purchased the Liebherr crane, in cash, from a

36 used crane dealer. The conditional “buy back” option (which

1 This is a diversity case. The parties disagree

about whether Maryland or New York law should apply, but all

agree with the district court’s conclusion that the relevant

provisions of the Uniform Commercial Code are identical in

both states. Because we agree that there is no relevant

conflict between Maryland and New York, we apply the law of

the forum state: New York. See Licci ex rel. Licci v.

Lebanese Canadian Bank, SAL, 672 F.3d 155, 157 (2d Cir.

2012).

2
1 was never exercised) and the contemplated “trade-in” of

2 another crane (which never happened) are not enough to take

3 this transaction out of the “ordinary course of business”

4 under New York U.C.C. § 1-201(9). The district court

5 correctly concluded that Ramar purchased the Liebherr crane

6 free of any security interest from FFCI. See N.Y. U.C.C.

7 § 9-320(a).

8

9 2. The Tadano crane: we agree with the district court

10 that FFCI never obtained a perfected security interest in

11 the Tadano, because Ramar neither completed the sale, nor

12 delivered the crane. See N.Y. U.C.C. §§ 2-106(1), 2-401.

13

14 For the foregoing reasons, and finding no merit in

15 FFCI’s other arguments, we hereby AFFIRM the judgment of the

16 district court.

17

18 FOR THE COURT:

19 CATHERINE O’HAGAN WOLFE, CLERK

20

3