You are here: / / Provision Which Violates General Business Law 395-a (Re: Maintenance Agreements)...
,

Provision Which Violates General Business Law 395-a (Re: Maintenance Agreements) Did Not Render Contract Null and Void

In a full-fledged opinion by Judge Read (with a dissent by Judge Smith) the Court of Appeals determined that a contract provision which violated General Business Law 395-a (2) did not render the contract null and void and a private right of action pursuant to General Business Law section 349 did not lie for the violation.  Section 395-a provides that a maintenance agreement covering parts and/or service can not be terminated by the party offering the agreement during the term of the agreement.  The maintenance agreement at issue included a “store closure” provision which allowed the defendant to terminate the maintenance agreement in the event of closure of the store issuing the agreement.  The Court assumed that the “store closure” provision violated the General Business Law but held the violation did not render the contract null and void.  The Court further determined the violation did not constitute a deceptive practice within the meaning of General Business Law 349.  Schlessinger…v Valspar Corporation, No 66, CtApp, 5-30-13

 

You might also like
THE LANDLORD’S APPLICATION TO AMEND PRIOR ANNUAL REGISTRATION STATEMENTS TO PERMANENTLY EXEMPT AN APARTMENT FROM RENT STABILIZATION WAS PROPERLY DENIED BY THE DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL (DHCR); ONLY MINISTERIAL AMENDMENTS TO PRIOR ANNUAL REGISTRATION STATEMENTS, SUCH AS CLERICAL ERRORS AND MISSPELLINGS, ARE ALLOWED (CT APP). ​
Reduced Sentences Pursuant to the Drug Law Reform Act Apply to Those on Parole As Well As Those Who Are Incarcerated
STANDARD FOR THE NEED FOR A HEARING TO DETERMINE CUSTODY CLARIFIED; HERE SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE RULED ON CUSTODY WITHOUT A HEARING.
UNBEKNOWNST TO ALL DURING THE 1992 SURROGATE’S COURT PROCEEDING, THE DECEDENT’S BROTHER WAS STILL ALIVE; DECEDENT’S NEPHEW TOOK POSSESSION OF DECEDENT’S PROPERTY, A THREE-STORY BUILDING, IN 1993; THE NEPHEW FIRST BECAME AWARE OF DECEDENT’S BROTHER’S INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY IN 2019; THE COURT OF APPEALS DETERMINED THE NEPHEW ACQUIRED THE PROPERTY BY ADVERSE POSSESSION (CT APP).
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED ON THE GROUND THAT PLAINTIFF’S DEPOSITION TESTIMONY CONTRADICTED THE CONCLUSIONS OF PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT (CT APP). ​
“Home or Business Exception” to Criminal Possession of a Weapon Does Not Apply to Defendant Previously Convicted of a Crime
Pre-Closing Documents Can Not Be Used to Prove Conveyance or the Issuance of Title Insurance
A Factually Inconsistent Verdict Did Not Render the Evidence Insufficient to Support the Conviction

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Driver Who Had Right of Way But Allowed Another Driver to Turn Can Be Liable... Defective Acknowledgment Rendered Prenuptial Agreement Invalid