This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

P owned a 2018 Dodge Challenger, which was financed with a loan through D for 72 monthly payments beginning October 30, 2020, of $525.26. Any change to this contract was required to be in writing and signed; no oral changes were binding. P fell behind and called D and explained that he had experienced a loss of income due to the pandemic. D's representative advised P that he 'qualified for a new loan program for the next six months, and that all he had to do was to make a good faith payment prior to January 16, 2022. D told P that they would be sending him a document to sign as part of this new loan program. D then sent P an Email confirming the agreement to enroll P in this new loan program, stating: Please make your good-faith payment of $262.63 by January 16, 2022, in order to move forward with your Temporary Payment Reduction Plan enrollment. If you made a partial good-faith payment, please pay the remaining amount. If we don't receive your payment by January 16, 2022, you may not be enrolled in the plan, and collection activities may resume. After we receive your good-faith payment, please make sure to also sign and return your agreement letter to complete your enrollment in the Temporary Payment Reduction Plan. P made the payment on January 14 and claims he never received the document that was to be sent. D ordered the vehicle be repossessed. At 2:30 a.m. on February 7, 2022, P saw a tow truck attempting to tow his vehicle. P then went outside his home and confronted the person moving his vehicle, who was attempting to secure P's vehicle for transport to the repossession yard. P advised Dezba's employee that he had entered into an agreement with D and timely made his good faith payment as agreed. Dezba's employee continued with the repossession. P filed complaints, and eventually Ds moved to dismiss them. P claims that Ds lacked the present right to take possession of his vehicle because the Parties modified the Original Contract, thereby curing his default, and that Ds breached the peace by repossessing his vehicle after he objected to the repossession. Ds claim they had a present right to repossess the vehicle because the Original Contract was never modified, and that P's breach of peace claim must fail because a verbal objection is insufficient under New York law to sustain a breach of peace claim.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.