New York Used Car Lemon Law

Keywords, used car lemon law, claim, defect, consumer fraud, New York used car lemon law, counsel fees, deception, used car lemon law claim.     

(prior adverse lemon law decision does not bar subsequent court action).

Felton v. World Class Cars, 12 Misc.3d 64 (2006)
Appeal from a judgment of the District Court of Suffolk County, First District (James P. Flanagan, J.), entered October 1, 2004. The judgment, after a non-jury trial, dismissed the action.
Judgment reversed without costs and matter remanded to the court below for a new trial.


[11] In this small claims action, plaintiff sought to recover damages for defects in a used car which he purchased from defendant. Specifically, he claimed that a flashing data communication link light was never fixed. During the course of his testimony, plaintiff stated that he had previously participated in the Attorney General's Used Car Lemon Law Arbitration Program (see General Business Law § 198-b), wherein he unsuccessfully sought relief for the malfunctioning light. The arbitrator's decision concluded that plaintiff did not qualify for relief under the statute.


[12] Contrary to the trial court's determination, one's participation in the Attorney General's Used Car Lemon Law Arbitration Program does not necessarily preclude a consumer from commencing a subsequent action, provided that the same relief is not sought in the litigation (see Williams v Planet Motor Car, 190 Misc 2d 22 [2001]). Indeed, the Used Car Lemon Law itself provides that "[n]othing in this section shall in any way limit the rights or remedies which are otherwise available to a consumer under any other law" (see General Business Law § 198-b [d] [2]). The trial court therefore erred in dismissing the action without affording plaintiff an opportunity to seek relief under alternative causes of action, including breach of express warranty (UCC 2-313) or breach of implied warranty (UCC 2-314). Because the court in effect prevented plaintiff from fully presenting his claim and from cross-examining the defense witness, we are unable to conclusively determine from the record whether plaintiff in fact had a valid cause of action under any alternative theory. Accordingly, in our opinion, substantial justice would best be served by granting plaintiff a new trial.

Law Offices of Howard A. Gutman,
230 Route 206, Flanders, New Jersey 07836
(973) 598-1980, E-mail Howian@aol.com
Fax (973) 598-1982

New York Office
305 Madison Avenue, Suite 449
New York, New York 10165 (212) 886-4838

FREE INITIAL CONSULTATION  

We offer a free initial telephone consultation to discuss your lemon law case. Please feel free to call or e-mail our office.

keywords, used car lemon law, claim, defect, consumer fraud, New York used car lemon law, counsel fees, deception, used car lemon law claim.