State v. General Motors Corp.

New York Court of Appeals

State v. General Motors Corp.

400 N.E.2d 287, 48 N.Y.2d 836, 424 N.Y.S.2d 345, 1979 N.Y. LEXIS 2479

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedNovember 27, 1979

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 400 N.E.2d 287 (State v. General Motors Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. General Motors Corp., 400 N.E.2d 287, 48 N.Y.2d 836, 424 N.Y.S.2d 345, 1979 N.Y. LEXIS 2479 (N.Y. 1979).

Pincite

Opinions

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order dated June 6, 1978 should be reversed, with costs, the proceeding dismissed as to the claim with respect to the Cadillac Seville and the proceeding as to the remainder of the claims asserted remitted for an evidentiary hearing on the issues of fact and further proceedings on the petition, if warranted, all for the reasons stated in the dissenting opinion of Mr. Justice Samuel J. Silverman at the Appellate Division. As the dissenters in our court argue, there is evidence in this record from which it might be found that General Motors was guilty of dissemination of misleading advertising. There is also, however, substantial countervailing proof. This state of the record precludes the summary disposition accorded below. Particularly is this so inasmuch as there is evidence in the record that the engineering and marketing practice of General Motors, to which the Attorney-General points attention in this proceeding, is but a prototype of the assembly practices common generally to the automobile industry and to other American manufacturing industries.

There was no error in the determination of the Appellate Division (brought up for review pursuant to CPLR 5501, subd [a], par 1), affirming the denial of the motion to dismiss on the ground of res judicata.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order dated June 6, 1978 should be reversed, with costs, the proceeding dismissed as to the claim with respect to the Cadillac Seville and the proceeding as to the remainder of the claims asserted remitted for an evidentiary hearing on the issues of fact and further proceedings on the petition, if warranted, all for the reasons stated in the dissenting opinion of Mr. Justice Samuel J. Silverman at the Appellate Division. As the dissenters in our court argue, there is evidence in this record from which it might be found that General Motors was guilty of dissemination of misleading advertising. There is also, however, substantial countervailing proof. This state of the record precludes the summary disposition accorded below. Particularly is this so inasmuch as there is evidence in the record that the engineering and marketing practice of General Motors, to which the Attorney-General points attention in this proceeding, is but a prototype of the assembly practices common generally to the automobile industry and to other American manufacturing industries.

There was no error in the determination of the Appellate Division (brought up for review pursuant to CPLR 5501, subd [a], par 1), affirming the denial of the motion to dismiss on the ground of res judicata.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

400 N.E.2d 287, 48 N.Y.2d 836, 424 N.Y.S.2d 345, 1979 N.Y. LEXIS 2479, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-general-motors-corp-ny-1979.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack