VFS Financing, Inc. v. Shilo Management Corporation

An expert cannot constitute a genuine dispute of material fact where their testimony would be immaterial.

Shilo Management appealed a motion for summary judgement in favor of VFS Financing, assigning error that there existed genuine dispute of material fact. Shilo Management had secured a loan to buy an airplane, and later defaulted. VFS Financing sued to foreclose and enforce the security interest, and was awarded possession of the airplane early in litigation. Shilo Management contends that VFS Financing's failure to attempt to sell the airplane, while still pursuing enforcement of the security claim, was a breach of good faith dealing. Controlling New York UCC law stipulates that a secured party may enforce any number of remedies in court, including foreclosure and enforcing the security interest. UCC 9-601(a)(1). Shilo Management's expert witness who would testify that VFS Financing did not act commercially reasonable is immaterial and not a genuine dispute of material fact, since New York statute allows seeking multiple remedies and would not be a breach of good faith. Affirmed.