Matter of Daimler Chrysler v. Spitzer, (2006). Decision from New York State’s highest court establishing that a consumer does not need to show a defect exists at the time of arbitration or trial. This was an important victory for consumers because it established that a manufacturer who claims a vehicle is fixed at time of trial or hearing has not established a defense to the statute’s repair attempts or days out of service presumptions.
Harmon v. Major Chrysler Jeep Dodge, Inc., (2 nd Dept. 2012); In awarding summary judgment to the consumer, the Court held that strict compliance with the timing and form of disclosure requirements was necessary and rejected the dealer’s argument that “substantial compliance” with the rules was sufficient.
Francis v. Atlantic Infinity, Ltd., (2 nd Dept. 2009); Awarding summary judgment to the consumer and requiring a full refund after the dealer relied on a defense that it was awaiting a manufacturer’s inspection of the vehicle prior to authorizing the repairs.
Kucher v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., (2 nd Dept. 2008); Where consumer was obligated by the lease to return the vehicle, the Court ruled that plaintiff’s lack of possession of the vehicle does not bar him from seeking refund relief under the New Car Lemon Law.
Thomason v. Northport Ford (2 nd Dept. 2007) ; Reversing summary judgment rendered for dealership after holding the motion court improperly decided issues of fact, and restoring the case to the trial calendar.