Legal Opinion
Russo v. BMW of North America, LLC
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided March 29, 2011PublishedCited by 13 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
*644The motion court exercised its discretion in a provident manner in denying defendants’ motion. The record shows that defendants failed to establish how an inspection of the subject vehicle in April of 2010, which is the first time they sought to conduct such an inspection, is relevant to defending against plaintiffs’ claims under the Lemon Law (see General Business Law § 198-a).
Defendants also failed to demonstrate that by returning the vehicle as required by the lease agreement, plaintiff spoliated evidence. The Court of Appeals has stated that “nothing in the legislative history indicates…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. SpitzerNew York Court of Appeals · 2006
- Squitieri v. City of New YorkAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1998
- Baldwin v. Gerard Avenue, LLCAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2009
- Hall v. Elrac, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2010
- Kucher v. DaimlerChrysler Corp.Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York · 2008
3Cited by13 opinions
- Rossi v. Doka USA, Ltd.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2020
- Mahiques v. County of NiagaraAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2016
- Kleinberg v. 516 West 19th LLCAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2016
- Fata v. Heskel's Riverdale, LLCAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2024
- Fata v. Heskel's Riverdale, LLCAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2024
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.