CONSUMER LAW 2000 UPDATE
THE CONSUMER'S GUIDE TO SMALL CLAIMS COURT AND HOW TO USE FEDERAL
AND NEW YORK STATE CONSUMER PROTECTION STATUTES
Updated July 4, 2000
Submitted For Publication To The Journal
Of The New York State Bar Association And May Not
Be Reproduced Without The Permission Of Thomas A. Dickerson
By Judge Thomas A. Dickerson1
Prior to becoming a Westchester County Court Judge I served for
six years as a Judge on the Yonkers City Court, the busiest Court
in Westchester County, New York State. My favorite Court was Small
Claims Court where I handled nearly 3000 cases and published sixty-three
decisions in the New York Law Journal2. Those
consumer law and tenant law decisions are categorized by subject
matter and are available on my web site3 as
are many of my nearly 170 published consumer law articles.
My approach in Small Claims Court was to bring the parties into
Court and ask both sides a series of questions helping each to
formulate their positions. More often than not consumers had little
understanding of the rights and remedies available to them under
a host of Federal and New York State consumer protection statutes.
Small Claims Courts
New York State's Small Claims Courts provide consumers with a
cost effective legal forum in which to seek money damages up to
$3,000.00. The philosophical genesis of Small Claims Courts was
"` equal access to justice `"4.
It was hoped that Judges or arbitrators would be able to expeditiously
do " substantial justice " without the burden of motion
practice, discovery, rigid evidentiary rules and specific pleading
requirements5. There is an expanding body
of Small Claims Court law now available to consumers, attorneys,
arbitrators and Judges including manuals6,
law journals7, articles8
and web sites9.
General Business Law § 349: Deceptive Business Practices
Many small claims arise from defective or misrepresented
goods and services. Small Claims Courts provide a cost effective
forum and allow consumers to enforce their rights under a variety
of consumer protection statutes10. The most
popular of New York State's many consumer protection statutes
is General Business Law § 349 [ " GBL § 349 "
] which prohibits deceptive and misleading business practices.
GBL § 349 allows consumers to sue for $50.00 or actual damages
which may be trebled up to $1,000.00 upon a finding of a
" wil(ful) or know(ing) violat(ion) ".11
Attorneys fees and costs may be recovered as well. As long as
the deceptive business practice has " a broad impact on consumers
at large "12 and constitutes "
consumer-oriented conduct "13 proving
a violation of GBL § 349 is straight forward. As stated in
BNI N.Y. v. DeSanto14 " ( GBL
§ 349 ) is a broad, remedial statute... directed towards
giving consumers a powerful remedy. The elements of a violation
of ( GBL § 349 ) are (1) proof that the practice was deceptive
or misleading in a material respect and (2) proof that plaintiff
was injured...There is no requirement under ( GBL § 349 )
that plaintiff prove that defendant's practices and acts were
intentional, fraudulent or even reckless. Nor does plaintiff have
to prove reliance upon defendant's deceptive practices ".
Threshold Of Deception
Initially GBL § 349 had a low threshold for a finding of
deception, i.e., misleading and deceptive acts directed to "
the ignorant, the unthinking and the credulous who, in making
purchases, do not stop to analyze but are governed by appearances
and general impressions " [ Guggenheimer v. Ginzburg
]15. Recently, the Court of Appeals raised
the threshold to those misleading and deceptive acts " likely
to mislead a reasonable consumer acting reasonably under the circumstances
" [ Oswego Laborers' Local 214 Pension Fund v. Marine
Midland Bank, N.A.16
Deceptive Business Practices
GBL § 349 applies to a broad spectrum of goods and services
[ Karlin v. IVF America17 ( GBL 349...
" on (its) face appl(ies) to virtually all economic activity
and (its) application has been correspondingly broad...The reach
of (this) statute ` provides needed authority to cope with the
numerous, ever-changing types of false and deceptive business
practices which plague consumers in our State `" )].
Types Of Goods & Services Covered
The types of goods and services which GBL 349 applies to include
the following:
(1) Life Insurance Policies [ Gaidon v. Guardian Life
Insurance Co.18 ( misrepresentations
that " out-of-pocket premium payments ( for life insurance
policies ) would vanish within a stated period of time "
)];
(2) In Vitro Fertilization [ Karlin v. IVF America,
Inc. 19
( misrepresentations of in vitro fertilization rates of
success )];
(3) Real Estate Sales [ Gutterman v. Romano Real Estate20
( misrepresenting that a house with a septic tank was connected
to a city sewer system )];
(4) Wedding Singers [ Bridget Griffin-Amiel v. Frank
Terris Orchestras21 ( the bait and switch22 of a " 40-something crooner " for
the " 20-something " Paul Rich " who promised to
deliver a lively mix of pop hits, rhythm-and-blues and disco
classics " ) ];
(5) Furniture Sales [ Petrello v. Winks Furniture23
( misrepresenting a sofa as being covered in Ultrasuede HP and
protected by a 5 year ); Walker v. Winks Furniture24
( falsely promising to deliver furniture within one week );
Filpo v. Credit Express Furniture Inc.25
( failing to inform Spanish speaking consumers of a three day
cancellation period ) ];
(6) Professional Networking [ BNI New York Ltd. v. DeSanto26
( enforcing an unconscionable membership fees promissory
note ) ];
(7) Clothing Sales [ Baker v. Burlington Coat Factory27
( refusing to refund purchase price in cash for defective and
shedding fake fur ) ];
(8) Pyramid Schemes [ C.T.V. Inc. v. Curlen28
( selling bogus " Beat The System Program " certificates
); Brown v. Hambric29 ( selling misrepresented
instant travel agent credentials and educational services ) ];
(9) Aupair Services [ Oxman v. Amoroso30
( misrepresenting the qualifications of an abusive aupair to care
for handicapped children ) ];
(10) Exhibitions and Conferences [ Sharknet Inc. v.
Telemarketing, NY Inc.31 ( misrepresenting
length of and number of persons attending Internet exhibition
) ];
(11) Employee Scholarship Programs [ Cambridge v. Telemarketing
Concepts, Inc.32 ( refusing to honor
agreement to provide scholarship to employee ) ];
(12) Defective Automobile Ignition Switches [ Ritchie
v. Empire Ford Sales, Inc.33 (
dealer liable for damages to used car that burns up 4 ½
years after sale ];
(13) Automobile Liability Insurance [ Rubinoff v. U.S.
Capitol Insurance Co.34 ( automobile
insurance company fails to provide timely defense to insured ];
(14) Defective Brake Shoes [ Giarrantano v. Midas Muffler35
( Midas Muffler fails to honor brake shoe warranty ) ];
(15) Travel Services [ Meachum v. Outdoor World Corp.36
( misrepresenting availability and quality of vacation campgrounds;
Pelegrini v. Landmark Travel Group37
( travel agent misrepresents refundability of tour vouchers )
];
(16) Apartment Rentals [ Bartolomeo v. Runco and
Anilesh v. Williams38 ( renting illegal
apartments ); Yochim v. McGrath39
( renting illegal sublets )];
(17) Home Inspections [ Ricciardi v. Frank d/b/a/ InspectAmerica
Enginerring,P.C.40 ( civil engineer liable
for failing to discover wet basement ) ];
(18) Door-To-Door Sales [ Rossi v. 21st Century Concepts,
Inc.41 ( selling misrepresented and overpriced
pots and pans )];
(19) Educational Services [ Andre v. Pace University42
( failing to deliver computer programming course for beginners
); Brown v. Hambric43 ( failure to
deliver travel agent education program )];
(20) Internet Marketing [ People v. Lipsitz44
( failing to deliver purchased magazine subscriptions ) ].
Table Of Other Useful Consumer Protection Statutes
In addition to GBL § 349 there are a variety of consumer
protection statutes available to resolve small claims arising
from common consumer transactions. These include the following;
(1) Real Property Law § 235-b [ Warranty Of Habitability
];
(2) Personal Property Law §§ 425-431 [ Door-To-Door
Sales ];
(3) 47 U.S.C. § 227 [ Federal Telephone Consumer Protection
Act Of 1991 ];
(4) General Business Law § 399-p [ Restrictions On
Automated Telemarketing Devices ];
(5) General Business Law § 359-fff [ Pyramid Schemes
];
(6) Civil Practice Law And Rules § 3015(e) [ Licensing
Of Home Improvement Contractors ];
(7) 15 U.S.C. §§ 1601-1665 [ Truth In Lending
Act ];
(8) General Business Law § 201 [ Overcoats Lost At
Restaurants ];
(9) General Business Law § 218-a [ Retail Refund Policies
];
(10) General Business Law § 350 [ False Advertising
];
(11) General Business Law § 396-u [ Merchandise Delivery
Dates ];
(12) General Business Law § 617(2)(a) [ New Parts
Warranties ];
(13) General Business Law § 198-a [ New Car Lemon
Law ];
(14) General Business Law § 198-b [ Used Car Lemon
Law ];
(15) U.C.C. §§ 2-314, 2-318 [ Warranty Of Merchantability
];
(16) Vehicle & Traffic Law § 417 [ Warranty Of
Serviceability ];
(17) General Business Law § 396-p(5) [ New Car Purchase
Contract Disclosure Requirements ].
Warranty Of Habitability
Tenants in Spatz v. Axelrod Management Co.45
and coop owners in Seecharin v. Radford Court Apartment Corp.46 brought actions for damages done to their
apartments by the negligence of landlords, managing agents or
others, i.e., water damage from external or internal sources.
Such a claim may invoke Real Property Law § 235-b [ "
RPL § 235-b " ] , a statutory warranty of habitability
in every residential lease " that the premises...are fit
for human habitation ". RPL § 235-b " has provided
consumers with a powerful remedy to encourage landlords to maintain
apartments in a decent, livable condition "47
and may be used affirmatively in a claim for property damage48 or as a defense in a landlord's action for
unpaid rent49. Recoverable damages may include
apartment repairs, loss of personal property and discomfort and
disruption50.
Door-To-Door Sales
" Some manufacturers...favor door-to-door sales ( because
) ...the selling price may be several times greater than...in
a more competitive environment (and)...consumers are less defensive...in
their own homes and...are, especially, susceptible to high pressure
sales tactics "51. Personal Property
Law
[ " PPL " ] §§ 425-431 "` afford(s) consumers
a ` cooling-off' period to cancel contracts which are entered
into as a result of high pressure door-to-door sales tactics'"52. PPL § 428 provides consumers with rescission
rights should a salesman fail to complete a Notice Of Cancellation
form on the back of the contract. PPL § 428 has been used
by consumers in Rossi v. 21st Century Concepts, Inc.53
[ misrepresented pots and pans costing $200.00 each ], Kozlowski
v. Sears54 [ vinyl windows hard to open,
did not lock properly and leaked ] and in Filpo v. Credit Express
Furniture Inc55. [ unauthorized design
and fabric color changes and defects in overpriced furniture ].
Rescission is also appropriate if the Notice of Cancellation form
is not in Spanish for Spanish speaking consumers56.
A failure to " comply with the disclosure requirements of
PPL 428 regarding cancellation and refund rights " is a per
se violation of GBL 349 which provides for treble damages, attorneys
fees and costs57. In addition PPL 429(3)
provides for an award of attorneys fees and costs58.
Telemarketing
It is quite common for consumers to receive unsolicited
phone calls at their homes from mortgage lenders, credit card
companies and the like. Many of these phone calls originate from
automated telephone equipment or automatic dialing-announcing
devices, the use of which is regulated by Federal and New York
State consumer protection statutes.
On the Federal level the Telephone Consumer Protection Act59 [ TCPA ] prohibits users of automated telephone
equipment " to initiate any telephone call to any residential
telephone line using an artificial or prerecorded voice to deliver
a message without express consent of the called party "60. The purpose of the TCPA is to provide "
a remedy to consumers who are subjected to telemarketing abuses
and ` to encourage consumers to sue and obtain monetary awards
based on a violation of the statute ` "61
The TCPA may be used by consumers in New York State Courts including
Small Claims Court [ Kaplan v. Democrat & Chronicle62; Shulman v. Chase Manhattan Bank,63 ( TCPA provides a private right of action
which may be asserted in New York State
Courts )]. Under the TPCA consumers may recover their actual monetary
loss for each violation or up to $500.00 in damages, whichever
is greater. The Court may treble damages upon a showing that "
defendant willfully and knowingly violated "64
the Act.
On the State level, General Business Law § 399-p [ "
GBL § 399-p " ] " also places restrictions on the
use of automatic dialing-announcing devices and placement of consumer
calls in telemarketing "65 such as requiring
the disclosure of the nature of the call and the name of the person
on whose behalf the call is being made. A violation of GBL §
399-p allows recovery of actual damages or $50.00, whichever is
greater, including trebling upon a showing of a wilful violation.
Consumers aggrieved by telemarketing abuses may sue in Small Claims
Court and recover damages under both the TCPA and GBL § 399-p
[ Kaplan v. First City Mortgage66
( consumer sues telemarketer in Small Claims Court and recovers
$500.00 for a violation of TCPA and $50.00 for a violation of
GBL § 399-p )].
Pyramid Schemes
"` ( a pyramid scheme ) is one in which a participant pays
money...and in return receives (1) the right to sell products,
and (2) the right to earn rewards for recruiting other participants
into the scheme `"67. Pyramid schemes
are sham money making schemes which prey upon consumers eager
for quick riches.
General Business Law § 359-fff [ " GBL § 359-fff
" ] prohibits
" chain distributor schemes " or pyramid schemes voiding
the contracts upon which they are based. Pyramid schemes were
used in Brown v. Hambric68 to sell
travel agent education programs
[ " There is nothing new ` about NU-Concepts. It is an old
scheme, simply, repackaged for a new audience of gullible consumers
mesmerized by the glamour of travel industry and hungry for free
or reduced cost travel services " ] and in C.T.V., Inc.
v. Curlen69, to sell bogus " Beat
The System Program " certificates. A violation of GBL 359-fff
is a per se violation of GBL 349 which provides for treble damages,
attorneys fees and costs70.
Home Improvement Contractors
Homeowners often hire home improvement contractors to repair or
improve their homes or property. Home improvement contractors
must, at least, be licensed by the Department of Consumer Affairs
of New York City, Westchester County, Suffolk County, Rockland
County, Putnam County and Nassau County if they are to perform
services in those Counties [ New York Civil Practice Law And Rules
§ 3015(e) [ " CPLR § 3015(e) " ] ]. Should
the home improvement contractor be unlicenced he will be unable
to sue the homeowner for non-payment for services rendered [ Routier
v. Waldeck71 ( " The Home Improvement
Business provisions...were enacted to safeguard and protect consumers
against fraudulent practices and inferior work by those who would
hold themselves out as home improvement contractors " );
Cudahy v. Cohen72
( unlicenced home improvement contractor unable to sue homeowner
in Small Claims Courts for unpaid bills )].
Home improvement contractors who are unlicenced prior to commencing
a lawsuit against a homeowner may not cure this standing defect
by obtaining a license prior to a hearing in Court [ Chosen
v. Syz73 ( " unlicenced contractor
is barred any recovery for breach of contract or in quantum meruit.
This regardless of whether the work performed was satisfactory,
whether the failure to obtain the license was willful or, even,
whether the homeowner knew of the lack of the license and planned
to take advantage of its absence. "74
); Zandell v. Zerbe75 ( home
improvement contractor must have a valid license when the work
is done and when a lawsuit in commenced against the homeowner
)].
Truth In Lending
Consumers may sue in Small Claims Court for a violation of the
Federal Truth In Lending Act, 15 U.S.C.A. §§ 1601-1665
[ " TILA " ] and recover appropriate damages [ Community
Mutual Savings Bank v. Gillen76 ( borrower
counterclaims in Small Claims Court for violation of TILA and
is awarded rescission of loan commitment with lender and damages
of $400.00 )]. " TILA
( protects consumers ) from the inequities in their negotiating
position with respect to credit and loan institutions...( TILA
)
requir(es) lenders to provide standard information as to costs
of credit including the annual percentage rate, fees and requirements
of repayment...( TILA ) is liberally construed in favor of the
consumer...The borrower is entitled to rescind the transaction
` until midnight of the third business day following the consummation
of the transaction or the delivery of the information and rescission
forms required ...together with a statement containing the material
disclosures required... whichever is later...The consumer can
opt to rescind for any reasons, or for no reason "77.
TILA has been held to preempt Personal Property Law provisions
governing retail instalment contracts and retail credit agreements
[ Albank, FSB v. Foland78 ].
Lost Overcoats
" For over 100 years consumers have been eating out at restaurants,
paying for their meals and on occasion leaving without their simple
cloth overcoats...mink coats...mink jackets...racoon coats...Russian
sable fur coats...leather coats and, of course, cashmere coats..."79. In DiMarzo v. Terrace View80,
restaurant personnel encouraged a patron to remove his overcoat
and then refused to respond to a claim after the overcoat disappeared
from their coatroom. In response to a consumer claim arising from
a lost overcoat the restaurant may seek to limit its liability
to $200.00 as provided for in General Business Law § 201
[ " GBL § 201 " ]. However, a failure to comply
with the strict requirements of GBL § 201 [ "` as to
property deposited by...patrons in the...checkroom of any...restaurant,
the delivery of which is evidenced by a check or receipt therefor
and for which no fee or charge is exacted...'"81
] allows the consumer to recover actual damages upon proof of
a bailment and/or negligence82.
No Cash Refund Policies
Some stores refuse to refund the consumer's purchase price in
cash upon the return of a product [ " Merchandise, in New
Condition, May be Exchanged Within 7 Days of Purchase for Store
Credit...No Cash Refunds or Charge Credits "83
]. In Baker v. Burlington Coat Factory Warehouse84,
a clothing retailer refused to refund the consumer's cash payment
when she returned a shedding and defective fake fur two days after
purchase. General Business Law § 218-a [ " GBL §
218-a " ] permits retailers to enforce a no cash refund policy
if there are a sufficient number of signs notifying consumers
of " its refund policy including whether it is ` in cash,
or as credit or store credit only `"85.
If, however, the product is defective and there has been a breach
of the implied warranty of merchantability [ U.C.C. § 2-314
] then consumers may recover all appropriate damages including
the purchase price in cash [ U.C.C. § 2-714 ]86.
In essence, U.C.C. § 2-314 preempts87
GBL § 218-a [ Baker v. Burlington Coat Factory Warehouse88 ( defective shedding fake fur ); Dudzik
v. Klein's All Sports89 ( defective baseball
bat ) ]. It has been held that a " failure to inform consumers
of their statutory right to a cash or credit card charge refund
when clothing is defective and unwearable " is a violation
of GBL 349 which provides for treble damages, attorneys fees and
costs90.
False Advertising
Consumers who rely upon false advertising and purchase defective
goods or services may sue for misrepresentation. In addition to
common law claims for fraudulent misrepresentation the consumer
may assert a violation of General Business Law § 350 [ "
GBL § 350 " ] [ Card v. Chase Manhattan Bank91
( bank falsely misrepresented that its LifePlus Credit Insurance
plan would pay off credit card balances were the user to become
unemployed )]. GBL § 350 prohibits false advertising which
" means advertising, including labeling, of a commodity...if
such advertising is misleading in a material respect...( covers
)....representations made by statement, word, design, device,
sound...but also... advertising ( which ) fails to reveal facts
material "92. GBL § 350 covers
a broad spectrum of misconduct [ Karlin v. IVF America93
( " ( this statute ) on ( its ) face appl(ies) to virtually
all economic activity and ( its ) application has been correspondingly
broad " )]. Proof of a violation of GBL 350 is simple, i.e.,
" the mere falsity of the advertising content is sufficient
as a basis for the false advertising charge " [ People
v. Lipsitz94 ( magazine salesman violated
GBL § 350; " ( the )
( defendant's ) business practice is generally ` no magazine,
no service, no refunds " although exactly the contrary as
promised " ].
Furniture Delivery Dates
" In order to induce a sale furniture and appliance store
salesman often misrepresent the quality, origin, price, terms
of payment and delivery date of ordered merchandise "95. In Walker v. Winks Furniture96,
a salesman promised delivery of new furniture within one week
and then refused to return the consumer's purchase price when
she canceled two weeks later unless she paid a 20% cancellation
penalty. GBL § 396-u protects consumers from unscrupulous
salesmen who promise that merchandise will be delivered by specific
date when, in fact, it is not. A violation of GBL § 396-u
[ failing to disclose an estimated delivery date in writing when
the order is taken [ GBL § 396-u(2) ], failing to advise
of a new delivery date and giving the consumer the opportunity
to cancel [ GBL § 396-u(2)(b) ], failing to honor the consumer's
election to cancel without imposing a cancellation penalty [ GBL
§ 396-u(s)(c) ], failing to make a full refund within two
weeks of a demand without imposing a cancellation penalty [ GBL
§ 396-u(2)(d) ]] allows the consumer to rescind the purchase
contract without incurring a cancellation penalty97.
A violation of GBL 396-u is a per se violation of GBL 349 which
provides for treble damages, attorneys fees and costs98.
In addition, GBL 396-u(7) provides for a trebling of damages upon
a showing of a wilful violation of the statute99.
Automotive Parts Warranties
" The extended warranty and new parts warranty business generates
extraordinary profits for the retailers of cars, trucks and automotive
parts and for repair shops. It has been estimated that no more
than 20% of the people who buy warranties ever use them... Of
the 20% that actually try to use their warranties...
( some ) soon discover that the real costs can easily exceed the
initial cost of the warranty certificate "100.
In Giarratano v. Midas Muffler101,
Midas would not honor its brake shoe warranty unless the consumer
agreed to pay for additional repairs found necessary after a required
inspection of the brake system. General Business Law § 617(2)(a)
[ " GBL § 617(2)(a) " ] protects consumers who
purchase new parts or new parts' warranties from breakage or a
failure to honor the terms and conditions of a warranty [ "
If a part does not conform to the warranty...the initial seller
shall make repairs as are necessary to correct the nonconformity
"102 ]. A violation of GBL 617(2)(a)
is a per se violation of GBL 349 which provides for treble damages,
attorneys fees and costs103.
Cars, Cars, Cars
There are a variety of consumer protection statutes available
to purchasers of automobiles, new and used. A comprehensive review
of five of these statutes [ GBL § 198-b104
( Used Car Lemon Law ), express warranty105,
implied warranty of merchantability106 (
U.C.C. §§ 2-314, 2-318 ), Vehicle and Traffic Law [
V&T ] § 417, strict products liability107
] appears in Ritchie v. Empire Ford Sales, Inc.108,
a case involving a used 1990 Ford Escort which burned up 4 ½
years after being purchased because of a defective ignition switch.
A comprehensive review of two other statutes [ GBL § 198-a
( New Car Lemon Law ) and GBL § 396-p ( New Car Contract
Disclosure Rules )] appears in Borys v. Scarsdale Ford, Inc.109, a case involving a new Ford Crown
Victoria, the hood, trunk and both quarter panels of which had
been negligently repainted prior to sale.
New Car Lemon Law
New York State's New Car Lemon Law [ GBL § 198-a ] provides
that " If the same problem cannot be repaired after four
or more attempts; Or if your car is out of service to repair a
problem for a total of thirty days during the warranty period;
Or if the manufacturer or its agent refuses to repair a substantial
defect within twenty days of receipt of notice sent by you...Then
you are entitled to a comparable car or refund of the purchase
price " [ Borys v. Scarsdale Ford, Inc.110
]. Before commencing a lawsuit seeking to enforce the New Car
Lemon Law the dealer must be given an opportunity to cure the
defect [ Chrysler Motors Corp. v. Schachner111
( dealer must be afforded a reasonable number of attempts to cure
defect )].
Used Car Lemon Law
New York State's Used Car Lemon Law [ GBL § 198-b
]
provides limited warranty protection for ninety days or 4,000
miles, whichever comes first, for vehicles with odometer readings
of less than 36,000 [ Cintron v. Tony Royal Quality Used Cars,
Inc.112 ( defective 1978 Chevy Malibu
returned within thirty days
and full refund awarded )]. Used car dealers must be given an
opportunity to cure a defect before the consumer may commence
a lawsuit enforcing his or her rights under the Used Car Lemon
Law
[ Milan v. Yonkers Avenue Dodge, Inc.113
( dealer must have opportunity to cure defects in used 1992 Plymouth
Sundance ) ].
The Used Car Lemon Law does not preempt other consumer protection
statutes [ Armstrong v. Boyce114
] and has been applied to used vehicles with coolant leaks [ Fortune
v. Scott Ford,
Inc.115 ], malfunctions in the steering
and front end mechanism
[ Jandreau v. LaVigne116 ], and stalling
and engine knocking
[ Ireland v. J.L.'s Auto Sales, Inc.117
].
Implied Warranty Of Merchantability
Both new and used cars carry with them an implied warranty of
merchantability [ U.C.C. §§ 2-314, 2-318 ][ Denny
v. Ford Motor Company118 ]. Although
broader in scope than the Used Car Lemon Law the implied warranty
of merchantability does have its limits, i.e., it is time barred
four years after delivery
[ U.C.C. § 2-725; Hull v. Moore Mobile Homes Stebra, Inc119.,
( defective mobile home; claim time barred )] and the dealer may
disclaim liability under such a warranty [ U.C.C. § 2-316
] if such a disclaimer is written and conspicuous [ Natale
v. Martin Volkswagen, Inc.120 ( disclaimer
not conspicuous )].
Warranty Of Serviceability
Used car buyers are also protected by Vehicle and Traffic Law
§ 417 [ " V&T § 417 " ] which requires
used car dealers to inspect vehicles and deliver a certificate
to buyers stating that the vehicle is in condition and repair
to render, under normal use, satisfactory and adequate service
upon the public highway at the time of delivery. V&T §
417 is a non-waiveable, nondisclaimable, indefinite, warranty
of serviceability which has been liberally construed [ Barilla
v. Gunn Buick Cadillac-GNC, Inc.121;
Ritchie v. Empire Ford Sales, Inc.122
( dealer liable for Ford Escort that burns up 4 ½ years
after purchase )].
New Car Contract Disclosure Rules
In Borys v. Scarsdale Ford, Inc123,
a consumer demanded a refund or a new car after discovering that
a new Ford Crown Victoria had several repainted sections. The
Court discussed liability under GBL § 198-a ( New Car Lemon
Law ) and GBL § 396- p(5) ( Contract Disclosure Requirements
) [ " gives consumers statutory rescission rights ` in cases
where dealers fail to provide the required notice of prior damage
and repair(s)' ( with a ) ` retail value in excess of five percent
of the lesser of manufacture's or distributor's suggested retail
price `" ].
In Borys the Court dismissed the complaint finding (1)
that under GBL § 198-a the consumer must give the dealer
an opportunity to cure the defect and (2) that under GBL §
396-p(5) Small Claims Court would not have jurisdiction [ money
damages of $3,000 ] to force " defendant to give...a new
Crown Victoria or a full refund, minus appropriate deductions
for use ".
Conclusion
There are, of course, many more consumer protection statutes available
to consumers, attorneys, arbitrators and Judges in New York State's
Small Claims Courts.
FOOTNOTES
1
. Thomas A. Dickerson is a Westchester
County Court Judge, New York State, Web Page http://members.aol.com/judgetad/index.html.
Judge Dickerson is the author of Travel Law, Law Journal
Press, New York, 1981-2000, updated biannually, Web Page http://members.aol.com/travellaw/index.html, Class
Actions: The Law of 50 States,
Law Journal Press, 1988-2000, updated annually, Web Page http://members.aol.com/class50/index.html, and
over 170 articles and papers on consumer law issues, Web Page
http://courts.state.ny.us/tandv.html.
2 .
See http://courts.state.ny.us/tandv/legalart.html
3 .
My web site is at http://members.aol.com/judgetad/index.html
4 4.
Celona v. Celona, New York Law Journal, March 25,
1994, p. 36, col. 2 ( Yks. Cty. Ct. ).
5 .
Celona v. Celona, New York Law Journal, March 25,
1994, p. 36, col. 2 ( Yks. Cty. Ct. ).
6 .
See Engoran, Manual For Small Claims Arbitrators, A Comprehensive
Guide To Litigating In The Small Claims Part Of The Civil Court
Of The City Of New York; Fourth Edition June 1998.
7 .
See The Small Claims Law Journal, Vol. 10, Issue
1, Fall 1998, Civil Court of the City of New York.
8 .See
e.g., Lebovits, Small Claims Courts Offer Prompt Adjudication
Based On Substantive Law, N.Y.S. Bar Journal, December
1998, p. 1; Lebovits, Special Procedures Apply To Enforcing
Judgments In Small Claims Courts, N.Y.S. Bar Journal,
January 1999, p. 28; Lebovits & Snyder, Practitioner's
Guide To Small Claims Part, New York Law Journal, Feb.
25, 1997, p. 1; Lebovits & Engoran, How To Help Judgment
Creditors Collect: The Effective Use of Civil Court Act Article
18, New York Law Journal, Jan. 27, 1998, p. 1; Latwin,
City Courts: Organization and Civil Jurisdiction Update,
23 Westchester Bar Journal 265
( 1996 ); Latwin, Civil Courts: Organization and Civil Jurisdiction,
17 Westchester Bar Journal 279 ( 1990 ).
9 .
See e.g., Judge Dickerson's Consumer Law Decisions web site at
http://members.aol.com/judgetad/index.html.
10 .
See Dickerson, Applying Consumer Protection Laws In Small
Claims Courts, New York Law Journal, Sept. 21, 1998, p.
1. See also Wagner, Using the ` Reasonable Consumer ` Rule
In Deceptive Practices Litigation, New York Law Journal,
Dec. 28, 1998, p. 1;
Lesser, 1997 New York Consumer Fraud Act Decisions,
New York Law Journal, April 3, 1998, p. 1.
11 .
See e.g., Hart v. Moore, 155 Misc. 2d 203, 587 N.Y.S.
2d 477, 480 ( 1992 ).
12 .
Oswego Laborers' Local 214 Pension Fund v. Marine Midland
Bank, N.A., 85 N.Y. 2d 20, 623 N.Y.S. 2d 529, 532, 647
N.E. 2d 741 ( 1995 ). See also Walts v. Melon Mortgage Corporation,
259 A.D. 2d 322, 686 N.Y.S. 2d 428 ( 1999 )( " Plaintiffs
have adequately alleged a materially deceptive practice aimed
at consumers " ), appeal dismissed 94 N.Y. 2d 795,
700 N.Y.S. 2d 424, 722 N.E. 2d 504 ( 1999 ); McKinnon v.
International Fidelity Insurance Co., 182 Misc. 2d 517,
522 ( N.Y. Sup. 1999 )( " the conduct must be consumer-oriented
and have a broad impact on consumers at large " ).
13 .
Cruz v. NYNEX Information Resources, 263 A.D. 2d
285, 290, 703 N.Y.S. 2d 103 ( 1st Dept. 2000 ).
14 .
BNI New York Ltd. v. DeSanto, 177 Misc. 2d 9, 14-15,
675 N.Y.S. 2d 753 ( 1998 ). Web Page http://www.ljx.com/cgi-
bin/f_cat?pr.../http/nylj/nyljcontent/051298d3.htm
15 .
Guggenheimer v. Ginzburg, 43 N.Y. 2d 268, 401 N.Y.S.
2d 182, 184, 372 N.E. 2d 17 ( 1977 ).
16 .
Oswego Laborers' Local 214 Pension Fund v. Marine Midland
Bank, N.A., 85 N.Y. 2d 20, 623 N.Y.S. 2d 529, 532, 647
N.E. 2d 741 ( 1995 ).
17 .
Karlin v. IVF America, Inc., 93 N.Y. 2d 282, 690
N.Y.S. 2d 495, 712 N.E. 2d 662 ( 1999 ).
18 .
Gaidon v. Guardian Life Insurance Co., 94 N.Y. 2d
330, 338, 704 N.Y.S. 2d 177, 725 N.E. 2d 598 ( 1999 ).
19 .
Karlin v. IVF America, Inc., 93 N.Y. 2d 282, 690
N.Y.S. 2d 495, 712 N.E. 2d 662 ( 1999 ).
20 .
Gutterman v. Romano Real Estate, New York Law Journal,
Oct. 28, 1998, p. 36, col. 3 ( Yks. Cty. Ct. ).
Web Page http://www.ljx.com/cgi-bin/f_cat?te.../ny.archive.
html/ 98/10/102898d6.htm
21 .
Bridget Griffin-Amiel v. Frank Terris Orchestras,
178 Misc. 2d 71, 677 N.Y.S. 2d 908 ( 1998 ).
22 .
Jacobs, Bride Wins Lawsuit Over a Switch in Wedding Singers,
New York Times Metro Section, Sept. 10, 1998, p. 1.
23 .
Petrello v. Winks Furniture, New York Law Journal,
May 21, 1998, p. 32, col. 3 ( Yks. Cty. Ct. ).
Web Page http://www.ljx.com/cgi-cib/f_cat?pr.../http /
nylj/nyljcontent/052198d3.htm
24 .
Walker v. Winks Furniture, 168 Misc. 2d 265, 640
N.Y.S. 2d 428 ( 1996 ).
25 .
Filpo v. Credit Express Furniture Inc., New York
Law Journal, Aug. 26, 1997, p. 26, col. 4 ( Yks. Cty. Ct. ).
Web Page http://www.ljx.com/cgi-bin/f_cat?pr.../http/ nylj/nyljcontent/082697d6.htm
26 .
BNI New York Ltd. v. DeSanto, 177 Misc. 2d 9, 14-15,
675 N.Y.S. 2d 753 ( 1998 ); See also Ricucci v. Business
Network Int'l, Index No. SC 8876/97, Decision dated May
5, 1998, Yks. Cty. Ct. (TAD)( professional networking organization
fails to deliver " good referrals " to real estate broker
).
27 .
Baker v. Burlington Coat Factory, 175 Misc. 2d 951,
673 N.Y.S. 2d 281 ( 1998 ).
Web Page http://www.ljx.com/cgi-bin/f_cat?pr.../http/ nylj/nyljcontent/030298d3.htm
28 .
C.T.V., Inc. v. Curlen, New York Law Journal, Dec.
3, 1997, p. 35, col. 1 ( Yks. Cty. Ct. ).
Web Page http://www.ljx.com/cgi-bin/f_cat?pr.../http/ nylj/nyljcontent/120397d2.ht..
29 .
Brown v. Hambric, 168 Misc. 2d 502, 638 N.Y.S. 2d
873
( 1995 ). Web Page
http://www.directsaleslaw.com/library/cases/mlm/state/nybrown.htm
30 .
Oxman v. Amoroso, 172 Misc. 2d 773, 659 N.Y.S. 2d
963
( 1997 ).
Web Page http://www.ljx.com/cgi-bin/f_cat?pr.../http/ nylj/nyljcontent/050297d2.htm
31 .
Sharknet Inc. v. Techmarketing, NY Inc., New York
Law Journal, April 22, 1997, p. 32, col. 3 ( Yks. Cty. Ct. ),
aff'd
N.Y.A.T., Decision dated Dec. 7, 1998.
32 .
Cambridge v. Telemarketing Concepts, Inc., 171 Misc.
2d 796, 655 N.Y.S. 2d 795 ( 1997 ).
33 .
Ritchie v. Empire Ford Sales, Inc., New York Law
Journal, November 7, 1996, p. 30, col. 3 ( Yks. Cty. Ct. ).
34 .
Rubinoff v. U.S. Capitol Insurance Co., New York
Law Journal, May 10, 1996, p. 31, col. 3 ( Yks. Cty. Ct. ).
35 .
Giarrantano v. Midas Muffler, 166 Misc. 2d 390,
630 N.Y.S. 2d 656 ( 1995 ).
36 .
Meachum v. Outdoor World Corp., 235 A.D. 2d 462,
652 N.Y.S. 2d 749 ( 1997 ).
37 .
Pellegrini v. Landmark Travel Group, 165 Misc. 2d
589, 628 N.Y.S. 2d 1003 ( 1995 ).
38 .
Bartolomeo v. Runco, 162 Misc. 2d 485, 616 N.Y.S.
2d 695
( 1994 ); Anilesh v. Williams, New York Law Journal,
Nov. 15, 1995, p. 38, col. 2 ( Yks. Cty. Ct. )( landlord can not
recover unpaid rent for illegal apartment ).
39 .
Yochim v. McGrath, 165 Misc. 2d 10, 626 N.Y.S. 2d
685
( 1995 ).
40 .
Ricciardi v. Frank d/b/a InspectAmerica Engineering, P.C.,
163 Misc. 2d 337, 620 N.Y.S. 2d 918 ( 1994 ), mod'd 170
Misc. 2d 777, 655 N.Y.S. 2d 242 ( N.Y.A.T. 1996 ).
41 .
Rossi v. 21st Century Concepts, Inc., 162 Misc.
2d 932, 618 N.Y.S. 2d 182 ( 1994 ).
42 .
Andre v. Pace University, 161 Misc. 2d 613, 618
N.Y.S. 2d 975 ( 1994 ), rev'd on other grounds 170 Misc.
2d 893, 655 N.Y.S. 2d 777 ( 1996 ).
43 .
Brown v. Hambric, 168 Misc. 2d 502, 638 N.Y.S. 2d
873
( 1995 ). Web Page, supra.
44 .
People v. Lipsitz, 174 Misc. 2d 571, 663 N.Y.S.
2d 468
( 1997 ).
45 .
Spatz v. Axelrod Management Co., 165 Misc. 2d 759,
630 N.Y.S. 2d 461 ( 1995 ).
46 .
Seecharin v. Radford Court Apartment Corp., Index
No. SC 3194-95, Yks. Cty. Ct. (TAD), Decision dated June 15, 1995.
47 .
Spatz v. Axelrod Management Co., 165 Misc. 2d 759,
764, 630 N.Y.S. 2d 461 ( 1995 ).
48 .
Spatz v. Axelrod Management Co., 165 Misc. 2d 759,
630 N.Y.S. 2d 461 ( 1995 ); Seecharin v. Radford Court Apartment
Corp., supra.
49 49.
Kachian v. Aronson, 123 Misc. 2d 743 ( 1984 )( 15%
rent abatement ).
50 .
Spatz v. Axelrod Management Co., 165 Misc. 2d 759,
630 N.Y.S. 2d 461 ( 1995 ).
51 .
Rossi v. 21st Century Concepts, Inc., 162 Misc.
2d 932, 618 N.Y.S. 2d 182, 185 ( 1994 ).
52 .
Rossi v. 21st Century Concepts, Inc., 162 Misc.
2d 932, 618 N.Y.S. 2d 182, 185 ( 1994 ). Compare: Millan
v. Yonkers Avenue Dodge, Inc., New York Law Journal, Sept.
17, 1996, p. 26, col. 5 ( Yks. Cty. Ct. )( cooling-off period
under Door-To-Door Sales Act does not apply to sale of used cars
which is governed, in part, by cure requirements under New York's
Used Car Lemon Law
( GBL § 198-b )).
53 .
Rossi v. 21st Century Concepts, Inc., 162 Misc.
2d 932, 618 N.Y.S. 2d 182 ( 1994 ).
54 .
Kozlowski v. Sears, New York Law Journal, Nov. 6,
1997, p. 27, col. 3 ( Yks. Cty. Ct. ).
Web Page http://www.ljx.com/cgi-bin/f_cat?pr.../http/ nylj/nyljcontent/110697d3.htm
55 .
Filpo v. Credit Express Furniture Inc., New York
Law Journal, Aug. 26, 1997, p. 26, col. 4 ( Yks. Cty. Ct. ). Web
Page, supra.
56 .
Filpo v. Credit Express Furniture Inc., New York
Law Journal, Aug. 26, 1997, p. 26, col. 4 ( Yks. Cty. Ct. ). Web
Page, supra.
57 .
Rossi v. 21st Century Concepts, Inc., 162 Misc.
2d 932, 618 N.Y.S. 2d 182, 187 ( 1994 ).
58 .
Rossi v. 21st Century Concepts, Inc., 162 Misc.
2d 932, 618 N.Y.S. 2d 182, 187-188 ( 1994 ).
59 .
Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, 47 USC § 227.
60 .
47 USC § 227[b][1][B].
61 .
Kaplan v. First City Mortgage, 183 Misc. 2d 24,
28, 701 N.Y.S. 2d 859 ( 1999 ).
62 .
Kaplan v. Democrat & Chronicle, 266 A.D. 2d
848, 698 N.Y.S. 2d 799 ( 3rd Dept. 1998 ).
63 .
Schulman v. Chase Manhattan Bank, 2000 WL 769533
( N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dept. 2000 ).
64 .
47 USC § 227[b][3].
65 .
Kaplan v. First City Mortgage, 183 Misc. 2d 24,
701 N.Y.S. 2d 859 ( 1999 ).
66 .
Kaplan v. First City Mortgage, 183 Misc. 2d 24,
701 N.Y.S. 2d 859 ( 1999 ).
67 .
Brown v. Hambric, 168 Misc. 2d 502, 638 N.Y.S. 2d
873
( 1995 ). Web Page, supra.
68 .
Brown v. Hambric, 168 Misc. 2d 502, 638 N.Y.S. 2d
873
( 1995 ). Web Page, supra.
69 .
C.T.V., Inc. v. Curlen, New York Law Journal, Dec.
3, 1997, p. 35, col. 1 ( Yks. Cty. Ct. ). Web Page, supra.
70 .
Brown v. Hambric, 168 Misc. 2d 502, 638 N.Y.S. 2d
873
( 1995 ). Web Page, supra.
71 .
Routier v. Waldeck, __Misc. 2d__, 708 N.Y.S. 2d
270 ( 2000 ).
72 .
Cudahy v. Cohen, 171 Misc. 2d 469, 661 N.Y.S. 2d
171
( 1997 ).
73 .
Chosen v. Syz, 138 A.D. 2d 284, 525 N.Y.S. 2d 848
( 1988 ).
74 .
Kassapian, Special Counsel, New York City Department of Consumer
Affairs, Outline of CPLR 3015(e) and Unlicenced Businesses,
March 20, 2000, p. 1.
75 .
Zandell v. Zerbe, 139 Misc. 2d 737, 528 N.Y.S. 2d
779
( 1988 ).
76 .
Community Mutual Savings Bank v. Gillen, 171 Misc.
2d 535, 655 N.Y.S. 2d 271 ( 1997 ).
77 .
Community Mutual Savings Bank v. Gillen, 171 Misc.
2d 535, 537, 655 N.Y.S. 2d 171 ( 1997 ).
78 .
Albank, FSB v. Foland, 177 Misc. 2d 569, 676 N.Y.S.
2d 461
( 1998 ).
79 .
DiMarzo v. Terrace View, New York Law Journal, June
9, 1997, p. 34, col. 3 ( Yks. Cty. Ct. ), remanded on damages
only, N.Y.A.T, Decision dated Oct. 27, 1998.
Web Page http://www.ljx.com/cgi-bin/f_cat?pr.../http/ nylj/nyljcontent/060997d6.htm
80 .
DiMarzo v. Terrace View, New York Law Journal, June
9, 1997, p. 34, col. 3 ( Yks. Cty. Ct. ), remanded on damages
only, N.Y.A.T, Decision dated Oct. 27, 1998. Web Page, supra.
81 .
New York General Business Law § 201(1).
82 .
DiMarzo v. Terrace View, New York Law Journal, June
9, 1997, p. 34, col. 3 ( Yks. Cty. Ct. ), remanded on damages
only, N.Y.A.T, Decision dated Oct. 27, 1998.
83 .
Baker v. Burlington Coat Factory Warehouse, 175
Misc. 2d 951, 673 N.Y.S. 2d 281, 282 ( 1998 ). Web Page, supra.
84 .
Baker v. Burlington Coat Factory Warehouse, 175
Misc. 2d 951, 673 N.Y.S. 2d 281, 282 ( 1998 ). Web Page, supra.
85 .
Baker v. Burlington Coat Factory Warehouse, 175
Misc. 2d 951, 673 N.Y.S. 2d 281, 283 ( 1998 ). Web Page, supra.
86 83.
Baker v. Burlington Coat Factory Warehouse, 175
Misc. 2d 951, 673 N.Y.S. 2d 281, 283 ( 1998 ). Web Page, supra.
87 .
On the issue of preemption see Eina Realty v. Calixte,
178 Misc. 2d 80, 679 N.Y.S. 2d 796 ( 1998 )( RPAPL § 711
which permits commencement of litigation by landlord within three
days of service of rent demand notice is preempted by Fair Debt
Collection Practice Act ( 15 U.S.C.A. § 1692 )).
88 .
Baker v. Burlington Coat Factory Warehouse, 175 Misc. 2d 951, 673 N.Y.S. 2d 281 ( 1998
). Web Page, supra.
89 .
Dudzik v. Klein's All Sports,
158 Misc. 2d 72, 600 N.Y.S. 2d 1013 ( 1993 ).
90 .
Baker v. Burlington Coat Factory Warehouse, 175
Misc. 2d 951,
956-957, 673 N.Y.S. 2d 281 ( 1998 ). Web Page, supra.
91 .
Card v. Chase Manhattan Bank, 175 Misc. 2d 389,
669 N.Y.S. 2d 117 ( 1996 ).
92 .
Card v. Chase Manhattan Bank, 175 Misc. 2d 389,
669 N.Y.S. 2d 117, 121 ( 1996 )
93 .
Karlin v. IVF America, Inc., 93 N.Y. 2d 282, 690
N.Y.S. 2d 495, 712 N.E. 2d 662, 665 ( 1999 ).
94 .
People v. Lipsitz, 174 Misc. 2d 571, 663 N.Y.S.
2d 468, 475
( 1997 ).
95 .
Walker v. Winks Furniture, 168 Misc. 2d 265, 640
N.Y.S. 2d 428 ( 1996 ).
96 .
Walker v. Winks Furniture, 168 Misc. 2d 265, 640
N.Y.S. 2d 428 ( 1996 ).
97 .
Walker v. Winks Furniture, 168 Misc. 2d 265, 640
N.Y.S. 2d 428, 430 ( 1996 ).
98 .
Walker v. Winks Furniture, 168 Misc. 2d 265, 640
N.Y.S. 2d 428, 431 ( 1996 ).
99 .
Walker v. Winks Furniture, 168 Misc. 2d 265, 640
N.Y.S. 2d 428 ( 1996 ).
100 .
Giarrantano v. Midas Muffler, 166 Misc. 2d 390,
630 N.Y.S. 2d 656, 659 ( 1995 ).
101 .
Giarrantano v. Midas Muffler, 166 Misc. 2d 390,
630 N.Y.S. 2d 656, 660 ( 1995 ).
102 .
New York General Business Law § 617(2)(a).
103 .
Giarrantano v. Midas Muffler, 166 Misc. 2d 390,
630 N.Y.S. 2d 656, 661 ( 1995 ).
104 .
Millan v. Yonkers Avenue Dodge, Inc., New York Law
Journal, Sept. 17, 1996, p. 26, col. 5 ( Yks. Cty. Ct. ).
105 .
Automobile manufacturers or dealers may sell consumers new and
used car warranties which, typically, are contingent upon an opportunity
to cure. Borys v. Scarsdale Ford Inc., New York
Law Journal, June 15, 1998, p. 34, col. 4 ( Yks. Cty. Ct. ). Web
Page, infra.
106 .
Denny v. Ford Motor Company, 87 N.Y. 2d 248, 639
N.Y.S. 2d 250, 253-259, 662 N.E. 2d 730 ( 1995 )( comparison of
causes of action based upon strict products liability and breach
of warranty of merchantability ).
107 .
Strict products liability theory applies to new and used car dealers.
Nutting v. Ford Motor Company, 180 A.D. 2d 122,
584 N.Y.S. 2d 653 ( 1992 ).
108 .
Ritchie v. Empire Ford Sales Inc., New York Law
Journal, Nov. 7, 1996, p. 30, col. 3 ( Yks. Cty. Ct. ).
109 .
Borys v. Scarsdale Ford, Inc., New York Law Journal,
June 15, 1998, p. 34, col. 4 ( Yks. Cty. Ct. ).
Web Page http://www.ljx.com/cgi-bin/f_cat?.../
http/nylj/nyljcontent/061598d3.htm
110 .
Borys v. Scarsdale Ford, Inc., New York Law Journal,
June 15, 1998, p. 34, col. 4 ( Yks. Cty. Ct. ). Web Page, supra.
111 .
Chrysler Motors Corp. v. Schachner, 166 A.D. 2d
683, 561 N.Y.S. 2d 595, 596-597 ( 1990 ).
112 .
Cintron v. Tony Royal Quality Used Cars, Inc., 132
Misc. 2d 75, 503 N.Y.S. 2d 230 ( 1986 ).
113 .
Millan v. Yonkers Avenue Dodge, Inc., New York Law
Journal, Sept. 17, 1996, p. 26, col. 5 ( Yks. Cty. Ct. ).
114 .
Armstrong v. Boyce, 135 Misc. 2d 148, 513 N.Y.S.
2d 613, 617 ( 1987 ).
115 .
Fortune v. Scott Ford, Inc., 175 A.D. 2d 303, 572
N.Y.S. 2d 382 ( 1991 ).
116 .
Jandreau v. LaVigne, 170 A.D. 2d 861, 566 N.Y.S.
2d 683
( 1991 ).
117 .
Ireland v. J.L.'s Auto Sales, Inc., 151 Misc. 2d
1019, 574 N.Y.S. 2d 262 ( 1991 ), rev'd 153 Misc. 2d 721,
582 N.Y.S. 2d 603 ( 1992 ).
118 .
Denny v. Ford Motor Company, 87 N.Y. 2d 248, 638
N.Y.S. 2d 250, 253-259 ( 1995 ).
119 .
Hull v. Moore Mobile Home Stebra, Inc., 214 A.D.
2d 923, 625 N.Y.S. 2d 710, 711 ( 1995 ).
120 .
Natale v. Martin Volkswagen, Inc., 92 Misc. 2d 1046,
402 N.Y.S. 2d 156, 158-159 ( 1978 ).
121 .
Barilla v. Gunn Buick Cadillac-GMC, Inc., 139 Misc.
2d 496, 528 N.Y.S. 2d 273 ( 1988 ).
122 .
Ritchie v. Empire Ford Sales Inc., New York Law
Journal, Nov. 7, 1996, p. 30, col. 3 ( Yks. Cty. Ct. ).
123 .
Borys v. Scarsdale Ford, Inc., New York Law Journal,
June 15, 1998, p. 34, col. 4 ( Yks. Cty. Ct. ).
Web Page http://www.ljx.com/cgi-bin/f_cat?.../ http/nylj/nyljcontent/061598d3.htm