Planet Motor Car, Inc. v. Williams

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Planet Motor Car, Inc. v. Williams

299 A.D.2d 363, 749 N.Y.S.2d 168

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

DecidedNovember 4, 2002

StatusPublished

This text of 299 A.D.2d 363 (Planet Motor Car, Inc. v. Williams) 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

Planet Motor Car, Inc. v. Williams, 299 A.D.2d 363, 749 N.Y.S.2d 168 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to vacate an arbitration award dated April 20, 2001, issued pursuant to General Business Law § 198-b, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Dye, J.), entered October 18, 2001, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the petitioner’s contention, the respondent was a consumer for purposes of General Business Law § 198-b and thus was entitled to seek redress under the provisions of that statute (see General Business Law § 198-a [a] [1]; Kornblatt v Jaguar Cars, 172 AD2d 590; Parlato v Chrysler Corp., 170 AD2d 442). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the application to vacate the “Lemon Law” arbitration award.

[364]*364The petitioner’s remaining contentions are without merit. O’Brien, J.P., Krausman, Townes and Rivera, JJ., concur.

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

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to vacate an arbitration award dated April 20, 2001, issued pursuant to General Business Law § 198-b, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Dye, J.), entered October 18, 2001, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the petitioner’s contention, the respondent was a consumer for purposes of General Business Law § 198-b and thus was entitled to seek redress under the provisions of that statute (see General Business Law § 198-a [a] [1]; Kornblatt v Jaguar Cars, 172 AD2d 590; Parlato v Chrysler Corp., 170 AD2d 442). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the application to vacate the “Lemon Law” arbitration award.

[364]*364The petitioner’s remaining contentions are without merit. O’Brien, J.P., Krausman, Townes and Rivera, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

299 A.D.2d 363, 749 N.Y.S.2d 168, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/planet-motor-car-inc-v-williams-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack