Matter of BMW of N. Am., LLC v. Riina

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matter of BMW of N. Am., LLC v. Riina

2017 NY Slip Op 2610, 149 A.D.3d 420, 50 N.Y.S.3d 372

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

DecidedApril 4, 2017

Docket3637N 650716/15

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 2017 NY Slip Op 2610 (Matter of BMW of N. Am., LLC v. Riina) 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

Matter of BMW of N. Am., LLC v. Riina, 2017 NY Slip Op 2610, 149 A.D.3d 420, 50 N.Y.S.3d 372 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Debra A. James, J.), entered May 14, 2015, which, inter alia, denied BMW’s motions to vacate an arbitration award, dated February 19, 2014, and for a preliminary injunction to stay its compliance with the arbitration award, confirmed the arbitration award, and awarded judgment in favor of respondents in the total amount of $96,724.24, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the petition granted.

Respondents’ complaint — that the new car they purchased from BMW was inappropriately outfitted with “runflat” tires and 19” wheel rims that regularly developed “bubbles” in the sidewalls of the tires due to the rough road conditions in West-chester County and New York City, thereby compromising the car’s safety and handling — failed to state a claim under the Lemon Law (General Business Law § 198-a). Respondents failed to present any evidence to show a defect in materials or workmanship that was covered by the car manufacturer’s express warranties (see generally General Business Law § 198-a [b] [1]; Matter of DaimlerChrysler Corp. v Spitzer, 7 NY3d 653 [2006]; Motor Veh. Mfrs. Assn. of U.S. v State of New York, 75 NY2d 175 [1990]).

Tires were expressly excluded from BMW’s warranties. No evidence was offered to show that the tires and wheel rims used on the vehicle were incompatible with the car and its operation. There was no basis to find that the value of the car was substantially impaired by the use of the alleged inappropriate tires and wheel rims (see generally General Business Law § 198-a [c] [1]; Spitzer, 7 NY3d 653). Accordingly, we find that the arbitration award lacks a rational basis, and is unsupported by adequate evidence in the record (see generally Motor Veh. Mfrs. Assn., 75 NY2d 175).

Concur — Friedman, J.P., Sweeny, Moskowitz, Gische and Kapnick, 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 (Debra A. James, J.), entered May 14, 2015, which, inter alia, denied BMW’s motions to vacate an arbitration award, dated February 19, 2014, and for a preliminary injunction to stay its compliance with the arbitration award, confirmed the arbitration award, and awarded judgment in favor of respondents in the total amount of $96,724.24, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the petition granted.

Respondents’ complaint — that the new car they purchased from BMW was inappropriately outfitted with “runflat” tires and 19” wheel rims that regularly developed “bubbles” in the sidewalls of the tires due to the rough road conditions in West-chester County and New York City, thereby compromising the car’s safety and handling — failed to state a claim under the Lemon Law (General Business Law § 198-a). Respondents failed to present any evidence to show a defect in materials or workmanship that was covered by the car manufacturer’s express warranties (see generally General Business Law § 198-a [b] [1]; Matter of DaimlerChrysler Corp. v Spitzer, 7 NY3d 653 [2006]; Motor Veh. Mfrs. Assn. of U.S. v State of New York, 75 NY2d 175 [1990]).

Tires were expressly excluded from BMW’s warranties. No evidence was offered to show that the tires and wheel rims used on the vehicle were incompatible with the car and its operation. There was no basis to find that the value of the car was substantially impaired by the use of the alleged inappropriate tires and wheel rims (see generally General Business Law § 198-a [c] [1]; Spitzer, 7 NY3d 653). Accordingly, we find that the arbitration award lacks a rational basis, and is unsupported by adequate evidence in the record (see generally Motor Veh. Mfrs. Assn., 75 NY2d 175).

Concur — Friedman, J.P., Sweeny, Moskowitz, Gische and Kapnick, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2017 NY Slip Op 2610, 149 A.D.3d 420, 50 N.Y.S.3d 372, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-bmw-of-n-am-llc-v-riina-nyappdiv-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack