Legal Opinion
DiCintio v. DaimlerChrysler Corp.
New York Court of Appeals
Decided February 13, 2002PublishedCited by 44 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
Chief Judge Kaye.
The issue in this appeal is whether the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act (15 USC §§ 2301-2312) applies to plaintiff Mark DiCintio’s automobile lease. We conclude that it does not.
In June 1999, DiCintio leased from Adzam Auto Sales, Inc. a 1999 Jeep Grand Cherokee Laredo sport utility vehicle manufactured by DaimlerChrysler Corporation. The lease recited that Adzam would assign the lease to the “Holder,” Chrysler Financial Company L. L. C., and required DiCintio to insure the vehicle for the Holder’s benefit. The lease prohibited operation of the vehicle outside…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Corral v. Rollins Protective Services Co.Supreme Court of Kansas · 1987
- Freeman v. Hubco Leasing, Inc.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1985
- Hornberger v. General Motors Corp.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1996
- D.L. Lee & Sons, Inc. v. ADT Security Systems, Mid-South, Inc.District Court, S.D. Georgia · 1995
- Exley v. Village of EndicottNew York Court of Appeals · 1980
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by44 opinions
- In re Myford Touch Consumer LitigationDistrict Court, N.D. California · 2014
- Mesa v. BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, LLCDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2005
- Voelker v. Porsche Cars North America, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2003
- Dekelaita v. Nissan Motor Corp. in USAAppellate Court of Illinois · 2003
- Parrot v. DaimlerChrysler Corp.Arizona Supreme Court · 2006
39 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.