You are here: / / Four-Year Statute of Limitations Under Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act Started...
,

Four-Year Statute of Limitations Under Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act Started to Run When the Vehicle Was Delivered, I.E., When the Vehicle Was Leased===Three-Year Statute of Limitations for the General Business Law 349 Cause of Action Started to Run When the Vehicle Was Subsequently Purchased (After the Lease-Period)

Plaintiff leased a car (from BMW) for several years and then purchased it.  After the purchase plaintiff sought coverage for repairs under the Magnuson-Moss … Warranty Act (Warranty Act) and sought damages pursuant to General Business Law 349 (deceptive business practices).  The Second Department determined the Warranty Act cause of action accrued on the date the car was delivered (leased) and therefore was time-barred.  However, the General Business Law cause of action accrued when the car was purchased and was timely:

In moving to dismiss a cause of action as barred by the applicable statute of limitations, a defendant bears the initial burden of demonstrating, prima facie, that the time within which to commence the action has expired … . The burden then shifts to the plaintiff to raise a question of fact as to whether the statute of limitations was tolled or was otherwise inapplicable, or whether the action was actually commenced within the applicable limitations period … . To make a prima facie showing, the defendant must establish, inter alia, when the plaintiff’s cause of action accrued … .

Claims brought under the Warranty Act are covered by the four-year statute of limitations prescribed by UCC 2-725 … . That statute specifically defines the date of accrual to be “when the breach occurs, regardless of the aggrieved party’s lack of knowledge of the breach. A breach of warranty occurs when tender of delivery is made, except that where a warranty explicitly extends to future performance of the goods and discovery of the breach must await the time of such performance, the cause of action accrues when the breach is or should have been discovered” (UCC 2-725[2]).

Here, BMW met its prima facie burden by establishing that the plaintiff had four years from November 10, 2007, the date she accepted delivery of the vehicle, to commence the Warranty Act cause of action, but that this action was not commenced until November 22, 2011. … The “New Vehicle Limited Warranty” did not guarantee future performance but only promised to repair or replace defective parts for a specified period of time… . …

Actions pursuant to General Business Law § 349 must be commenced within three years of the date of accrual … , which first occurs when the plaintiff has been injured by a deceptive act or practice that is in violation of section 349 … . As this cause of action is predicated on the sale of the vehicle, which took place in October 2010, it was timely commenced on November 22, 2011, within the three-year statute of limitations … . Loiodice v BMW of N Am LLC, 2015 NY Slip Op 01244, 2nd Dept 2-11-15

 

You might also like
UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE, PRE-MIRANDA QUESTIONING OF THE DEFENDANT ABOUT HIS EMPLOYMENT CONSTITUTED CUSTODIAL INTERROGATION; ALL OF DEFENDANT’S STATEMENTS, PRE- AND POST-MIRANDA, MUST BE SUPPRESSED; JURY SHOULD HAVE BEEN TOLD OUT-OF-COURT STATEMENTS ADMITTED FOR A NONHEARSAY PURPOSE SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED FOR THEIR TRUTH (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF HAD NO MEMORY OF THE ACCIDENT AND THE JURY WAS GIVEN THE NOSEWORTHY CHARGE, DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT).
HOMEOWNER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON LABOR LAW 240(1), 241(6) AND 200 CAUSES OF ACTION PROPERLY DENIED, HOMEOWNER DID NOT DEMONSTRATE HE DID NOT CONTROL AND SUPERVISE PLAINTIFF’S WORK OR DID NOT CREATE OR WAS NOT AWARE OF THE DANGEROUS CONDITION.
Statements at Issue Were Statements of Opinion Directly Linked to the Plaintiff’s Writings—Defamation Complaint Properly Dismissed
DEFENDANT RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE NOTE SUBMITTED BY THE BANK TO DEMONSTRATE STANDING TO FORECLOSE WAS THE NOTE SHE SIGNED (SECOND DEPT).
THE DEFENDANT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, WHOSE ANSWER HAD BEEN STRUCK, SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO PRESENT EVIDENCE ON DAMAGES (FIRST DEPT).
RECORDS SUBMITTED BY THE BANK DID NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE, BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​
PLAINTIFFS’ ACTION ALLEGING BREACH OF AN ORAL CONTRACT REGARDING REPAYMENT OF A LOAN SECURED BY A NOTE AND MORTGAGE SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED AS BARRED BY THE STATUTE OF FRAUDS; THE FRAUD AND UNJUST ENRICHMENT CAUSES OF ACTION MUST BE DISMISSED AS DUPLICATIVE OF THE BREACH OF CONTRACT CAUSE OF ACTION (SECOND DEPT).

Categories

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

Copyright © 2023 New York Appellate Digest, LLC
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Telephone-Communication Buy-Sell Arrangements Sufficient for Long-Arm Jurisdiction/Forum... Appeal Should Not Have Been Dismissed as Moot Because the Underlying Order of...