Myrtle v. General Motors Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Myrtle v. General Motors Corp.

106 A.D.2d 883, 483 N.Y.S.2d 501, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 21792

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

DecidedDecember 14, 1984

StatusPublished

This text of 106 A.D.2d 883 (Myrtle v. 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

Myrtle v. General Motors Corp., 106 A.D.2d 883, 483 N.Y.S.2d 501, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 21792 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

Order and judgment unanimously affirmed, without costs. Memorandum: Plaintiff sued General Motors Corporation on its written warranty to repair all defects in plaintiff’s car. Upon trial, at the end of plaintiff’s case, the court dismissed the action for failure to prove a prima facie case. We agree with the trial court that there was insufficient evidence to show that defendant breached its warranty. Plaintiff failed to show by competent evidence that there were defects in the transmission after it had been repaired by defendant and that he informed defendant of any claimed defects after the repair, thus denying defendant an opportunity to correct them. The issue of punitive damages is not properly before us since the plaintiff failed to appeal a prior order dismissing the claim for such damages. (Appeal from order and judgment of Supreme Court, Niagara County, Wolf, J. — dismiss complaint.) Present — Denman, J. P., Boomer, Green, O’Donnell and Schnepp, JJ.

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

Order and judgment unanimously affirmed, without costs. Memorandum: Plaintiff sued General Motors Corporation on its written warranty to repair all defects in plaintiff’s car. Upon trial, at the end of plaintiff’s case, the court dismissed the action for failure to prove a prima facie case. We agree with the trial court that there was insufficient evidence to show that defendant breached its warranty. Plaintiff failed to show by competent evidence that there were defects in the transmission after it had been repaired by defendant and that he informed defendant of any claimed defects after the repair, thus denying defendant an opportunity to correct them. The issue of punitive damages is not properly before us since the plaintiff failed to appeal a prior order dismissing the claim for such damages. (Appeal from order and judgment of Supreme Court, Niagara County, Wolf, J. — dismiss complaint.) Present — Denman, J. P., Boomer, Green, O’Donnell and Schnepp, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

106 A.D.2d 883, 483 N.Y.S.2d 501, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 21792, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/myrtle-v-general-motors-corp-nyappdiv-1984.