Martin Motor Sales, Inc. v. Anglero

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Martin Motor Sales, Inc. v. Anglero

13 A.D.3d 281, 786 N.Y.S.2d 304, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15689

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

DecidedDecember 28, 2004

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 13 A.D.3d 281 (Martin Motor Sales, Inc. v. Anglero) 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

Martin Motor Sales, Inc. v. Anglero, 13 A.D.3d 281, 786 N.Y.S.2d 304, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15689 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Sheila Abdus-Salaam, J.), entered January 30, 2004, denying the petition to vacate the arbitration award and granting respondent’s cross motion to confirm the award, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

[282]*282Pursuant to the Used Car Lemon Law (General Business Law § 198-b), the court properly found that the award was rational and the evidence sufficiently supported the arbitrator’s finding in respondent’s favor (see Mount St. Mary’s Hosp. v Catherwood, 26 NY2d 493, 508 [1970]). The record indicates that the same problems existed with respondent’s vehicle for more than three repair attempts by petitioner within the statutory period. Concur—Buckley, P.J., Mazzarelli, Saxe, Friedman and Catterson, JJ.

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

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Sheila Abdus-Salaam, J.), entered January 30, 2004, denying the petition to vacate the arbitration award and granting respondent’s cross motion to confirm the award, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

[282]*282Pursuant to the Used Car Lemon Law (General Business Law § 198-b), the court properly found that the award was rational and the evidence sufficiently supported the arbitrator’s finding in respondent’s favor (see Mount St. Mary’s Hosp. v Catherwood, 26 NY2d 493, 508 [1970]). The record indicates that the same problems existed with respondent’s vehicle for more than three repair attempts by petitioner within the statutory period. Concur—Buckley, P.J., Mazzarelli, Saxe, Friedman and Catterson, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

13 A.D.3d 281, 786 N.Y.S.2d 304, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15689, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/martin-motor-sales-inc-v-anglero-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack