1250 Broadway, 27th Floor New York, NY 10001

HOW SOUR IS YOUR CAR?

New York's "Lemon Law" compels car manufacturers to repair or replace vehicles which have warrantied defects during the first 18,000 miles or within the first two years of ownership (whichever first occurs).  If, within those parameters, there have been a "reasonable number of attempts," or the vehicle has been out-of-service for a prolonged period of time, the consumer may request a replacement vehicle or refund of the purchase price.

A consumer satisfies this "reasonable number of attempts" standard if the same defect has been subject to repair "four or more times" and "continues to exist," or if the vehicle has been out of service for a total of thirty or more days (also known as the "days-out-of-service presumption").  In response, the manufacturer may demonstrate that the defect "does not substantially impair" the car's value or that the problem was caused by "abuse, neglect or unauthorized modifications or alterations of the motor vehicle."

In Matter of DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Spitzer, DaimlerChrysler, General Motors, and Saturn objected to the State's interpretation of the law and argued that a purchaser was required to demonstrate that the defect was not corrected after the fourth repair attempt and that the problem continued up to the time the consumer's case was heard. Luckily, the state's highest court didn't buy that analysis:

We do not read the repair presumption as requiring a consumer to establish that the vehicle defect continued to exist until the trial or hearing date. Rather, the plain language of the provision obligates a consumer to demonstrate that the vehicle was subject to repair at least four times and that the same defective condition remained unresolved after the fourth attempt. Therefore, once a consumer has met the four-repair threshold, the presumption arises regardless of whether the manufacturer later remedies the problem. After four attempts, it is presumed that the manufacturer has been given a reasonable number of opportunities to fix the vehicle. The determination of whether a reasonable number of attempts took place for a consumer to recover does not turn on whether the car was ultimately repaired. If the Legislature intended to condition recovery on such a requirement, it easily could have said so.

Clearly, the manufacturers' interpretation of the law would have crippled consumers by requiring them to keep their cars in a defective state in order to preserve their rights.  Since public safety and the interests of innocent purchasers would have not been served by such a reading of the statute, we applaud the outcome of this case.

For a copy of the Court of Appeals's decision in Matter of DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Spitzer, please click on the following link: http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2006/2006_09322.htm

For additional information about New York's Lemon Law, please click the following link: http://www.oag.state.ny.us/consumer/cars/newcarlemon.html

----------------------------

*General Business Law § 198-a

By the way, just in case you were wondering, the Online Etymology Dictionary (OED) suggests that the term "lemon" -- normally associated with a yellowy citrus fruit -- may have derived from British slang (from around 1906) meaning "to pass off a sub-standard article as a good one."

For a link to the OED entry, please click here:  http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=lemon

Categories: