People v. Michael Motors, Inc., 39 N.Y.2d 680 (1976)
A conviction under New York General Business Law § 392-e for odometer misrepresentation does not require proof of intent to deceive or mislead the purchaser, but only proof that the seller intended to commit the proscribed act of misrepresenting the mileage.
Summary
Michael Motors, Inc. was convicted of violating New York General Business Law § 392-e for selling a vehicle with a misrepresented odometer reading. The original owner informed the dealership that the broken odometer read over 80,000 miles. Two months later, the dealership sold the car with a replaced odometer showing only 36,000 miles, without marking the transfer form as “True mileage unknown.” The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, holding that the statute requires only proof that the seller intended to misrepresent the mileage, not intent to deceive the purchaser. The violation stemmed from the failure to disclose the true mileage, regardless of whether the misrepresentation was intended as deceit.
Facts
Michael Motors, Inc. acquired a used automobile. The car’s original owner informed the dealership that the vehicle’s odometer was broken and had already registered over 80,000 miles. The dealership’s records confirmed this information. Two months later, Michael Motors, Inc. sold the same vehicle. At the time of the sale, the vehicle had a replaced odometer indicating only 36,000 miles. The transfer form accompanying the sale was not marked with the entry “True mileage unknown”.
Procedural History
Michael Motors, Inc. was convicted in County Court for violating section 392-e of the General Business Law. The defendant appealed the conviction to the New York Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals affirmed the County Court’s order, upholding the conviction.
Issue(s)
Whether a conviction under New York General Business Law § 392-e requires proof of intent to deceive or mislead the purchaser regarding the vehicle’s mileage.
Holding
No, because the statute only requires proof that the seller intended to commit the proscribed act of misrepresenting the mileage, not that they acted with the specific intent to deceive the purchaser.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court reasoned that the statute’s terms and its objective only require proof that the seller intended to commit the act of misrepresentation. The Court relied on People v. Munoz, 9 NY2d 51 and People v. Bunis, 9 NY2d 1 to support its holding. The Court emphasized that Michael Motors, Inc. was advised by the original owner that the vehicle’s broken odometer had already registered over 80,000 miles. Despite this knowledge, Michael Motors, Inc. resold the vehicle with a replaced odometer indicating only 36,000 miles and failed to provide the disclosure mandated by the statute. The Court stated, “Whether or not this misrepresentation amounted to deceit is beside the point. The violation and conviction rests on the proven fact that the defendant never afforded the unwary purchaser the minimum disclosure mandated by the statute.” The court focused on the lack of disclosure, which the statute aimed to prevent. The court did not delve into any dissenting or concurring opinions, as the decision was unanimous.