In re General Motors Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re General Motors Corp.

24 A.D.3d 869, 806 N.Y.S.2d 257

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedDecember 1, 2005

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 24 A.D.3d 869 (In re General Motors Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re General Motors Corp., 24 A.D.3d 869, 806 N.Y.S.2d 257 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

Carpinello, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Benza, J.), entered November 8, 2004 in Albany County, which, inter alia, partially granted petitioner’s application pursuant to CPLR 7511 to vacate an arbitration award.

Following arbitration of respondent’s New Car Lemon Law claim, an arbitrator found in his favor and directed petitioner to refund him more than $30,000. In this CPLR article 75 proceeding to vacate this award, petitioner argued, and Supreme Court agreed, that the arbitrator applied an improper interpretation to General Business Law § 198-a (d) (1) in determining that respondent was entitled to relief under the statute.¹ Specifically, Supreme Court interpreted this provision as requiring a defect to exist at the time of an arbitration hearing.²

For the reasons set forth in our decision in Matter of DaimlerChrysler Corp. v Spitzer (26 AD3d — [decided herewith] [2005]), we find that Supreme Court improperly interpreted the New Car Lemon Law as requiring a consumer to prove that a defect exists at the time of the arbitration hearing in order to recover under the statutory scheme. As the record supports the arbitrator’s finding that respondent’s vehicle was subject to four or more repairs for the same problem without correction, its award must be confirmed.

Mercure, J.P, Spain, Rose and Kane, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, with costs, petition to vacate denied, motion to confirm granted and arbitration award reinstated. [See 5 Misc 3d 968 (2004).]

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Carpinello, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Benza, J.), entered November 8, 2004 in Albany County, which, inter alia, partially granted petitioner’s application pursuant to CPLR 7511 to vacate an arbitration award.

Following arbitration of respondent’s New Car Lemon Law claim, an arbitrator found in his favor and directed petitioner to refund him more than $30,000. In this CPLR article 75 proceeding to vacate this award, petitioner argued, and Supreme Court agreed, that the arbitrator applied an improper interpretation to General Business Law § 198-a (d) (1) in determining that respondent was entitled to relief under the statute.¹ Specifically, Supreme Court interpreted this provision as requiring a defect to exist at the time of an arbitration hearing.²

For the reasons set forth in our decision in Matter of DaimlerChrysler Corp. v Spitzer (26 AD3d — [decided herewith] [2005]), we find that Supreme Court improperly interpreted the New Car Lemon Law as requiring a consumer to prove that a defect exists at the time of the arbitration hearing in order to recover under the statutory scheme. As the record supports the arbitrator’s finding that respondent’s vehicle was subject to four or more repairs for the same problem without correction, its award must be confirmed.

Mercure, J.P, Spain, Rose and Kane, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, with costs, petition to vacate denied, motion to confirm granted and arbitration award reinstated. [See 5 Misc 3d 968 (2004).]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

24 A.D.3d 869, 806 N.Y.S.2d 257, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-general-motors-corp-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack