Copin v. Leuci

Lawrence Zucker for Sarah G. Copin, plaintiff. George Langberg for Helen Brandt, plaintiff. Peter C. Brown, Corporation Counsel (Nathan B. Silverstein of counsel), for defendant. matter what his excuse) to substantiate his testimony as against Girolamo's explanation of their transactions. He failed to adequately explain evidence adduced which corroborates Girolamo's version of the business relationship. In fact, there are many discrepancies in D'Avella's testimony which preclude the conclusion that Girolamo obtained the ring from him through larceny or any preconceived plan to steal it. The testimony is overwhelmingly in favor of the conclusion that Girolamo purchased the ring. In any event, he obtained possession of it and was clothed with such apparent ownership that the purchase from him by Brandt is protected under the statute. Perhaps there was some wrongdoing or fraud perpetrated upon the seller in this transaction. It is not necessary for this court to determine that question or which agent or agents were responsible therefor. As between two innocent victims of the fraud, the one who made possible the fraud on the other should suffer. (Dows v. Kidder, 84 N.Y. 121, 128; Parker v. Baxter, 86 N.Y. 586, 591; Zendman v. Harry Winston, Inc., supra; Cartwright v. Wilmerding, supra; Freudenheim v. Gutter, supra; Kirsch v. Provident Loan Soc. of N. Y., supra; Personal Property Law, §§ 43, 104.) Judgment is granted to the plaintiff Brandt. The complaint of the plaintiff Copin is dismissed. The defendant is directed, upon receipt of written release from the District Attorney of Queens County to deliver the chattel to the plaintiff Brandt. No costs or disbursements in favor of any of the parties as against the other parties to the two actions. One judgment may be entered. Stay as above indicated. Thirty days to make a case.