You are here: / / UNDER THE DEALER ACT, GENERAL MOTORS WAS NOT REQUIRED TO NOTIFY PLAINTIFF...

UNDER THE DEALER ACT, GENERAL MOTORS WAS NOT REQUIRED TO NOTIFY PLAINTIFF CHEVROLET DEALERSHIP OF GM’S APPROVAL OF THE RELOCATION OF ANOTHER CHEVROLET DEALERSHIP IN THE SAME AREA.

The Fourth Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Centra, determined defendant General Motors (GM) did not violate the Dealer Act (Vehicle and Traffic Law 463(2)(ff)(1)) by failing to notify plaintiff Chevrolet dealership of GM’s approval of the relocation of another Chevrolet dealership to an area about four miles from plaintiff’s dealership. The opinion focuses on statutory interpretation principles, the terms of the plaintiff’s dealership agreement with GM, and the application of federal and Michigan law:

We reject plaintiff’s contention that GM’s approval of Sharon’s relocation request ipso facto results in a modification of plaintiff’s franchise for which notice may be required under section 463 (2) (ff) (1). To construe section 463 (2) (ff) (1) to require notice to a dealer when a franchisor approves a relocation request of another dealer would essentially render section 463 (2) (cc) (1), which requires notice to certain dealers of relocations of other dealers, superfluous. It is well settled that “[a] court must consider a statute as a whole, reading and construing all parts of an act together to determine legislative intent . . . , and, where possible, should harmonize[] [all parts of a statute] with each other . . . and [give] effect and meaning . . . to the entire statute and every part and word thereof’ “… . Courts should construe a statute “to avoid rendering any of its language superfluous” … . Van Wie Chevrolet, Inc. v General Motors, LLC, 2016 NY Slip Op 06583, 4th Dept 10-7-16

VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW (DEALER ACT, UNDER THE DEALER ACT, GENERAL MOTORS WAS NOT REQUIRED TO NOTIFY PLAINTIFF CHEVROLET DEALERSHIP OF GM’S APPROVAL OF THE RELOCATION OF ANOTHER CHEVROLET DEALERSHIP IN THE SAME AREA)/DEALER ACT (DEALER ACT, UNDER THE DEALER ACT, GENERAL MOTORS WAS NOT REQUIRED TO NOTIFY PLAINTIFF CHEVROLET DEALERSHIP OF GM’S APPROVAL OF THE RELOCATION OF ANOTHER CHEVROLET DEALERSHIP IN THE SAME AREA)

You might also like
DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY DEFENDANT SUBCONTRACTOR DEMONSTRATED IT DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO SUPERVISE OR CONTROL THE WORK THAT CAUSED PLAINTIFF’S INJURY; THEREFORE THE LABOR LAW 240 (1) AND 200 CAUSES OF ACTION WERE PROPERLY DISMISSED AND THE COMMON LAW NEGLIGENCE CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT).
LAW FIRM ASSOCIATE WAS ENTITLED TO 5% OF $5 MILLION FEE UNDER A BREACH OF ORAL CONTRACT THEORY, BUT NOT UNDER A LABOR LAW 190 THEORY (FOURTH DEPT).
CONCLUSORY ALLEGATIONS THAT THE LANDLORD WAS AN OWNER OF OR A PARTNER IN THE BUSINESS WHICH LEASED THE PREMISES WHERE PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT WAS INJURED SHOULD NOT HAVE SURVIVED THE MOTION TO DISMISS.
VILLAGE’S AGREEMENT TO SELL ONE MILLION GALLONS OF WATER PER DAY FOR TRANSPORT TO PENNSYLVANIA WAS A TYPE I ACTION REQUIRING SEQRA REVIEW.
Application for Variance Properly Denied—Courts’ Review Powers Re: Actions of Zoning Board Explained
Motion to Amend Answer Should Have Been Allowed—Prejudice in this Context Explained
RECKLESS ENDANGERMENT CONVICTION NOT SUPPORTED BY THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE; BECAUSE THE LEGAL SUFFICIENCY OF THE CONVICTION WAS NOT CHALLENGED IT MUST BE REVERSED NOT REDUCED BY THE APPELLATE COURT; GRAND LARCENY AND POSSESSION OF STOLEN PROPERTY CONVICTIONS NOT SUPPORTED BY THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE; INADEQUATE PROOF OF VALUE (FOURTH DEPT).
DEFENDANT CHALLENGED THE VALIDITY OF THE PAROLE WARRANT WHICH WAS THE BASIS OF THE ENTRY INTO HIS HOME (THE PAYTON ISSUE); THE JUDGE SHOULD HAVE HELD A HEARING TO DETERMINE THE VALIDITY OF THE PAROLE WARRANT (FOURTH DEPT).

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

APPLICATION TO FILE LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED. NO SHOWING... NEW YORK’S BORROWING STATUTE APPLIES PURSUANT TO CONTRACTUAL CHOICE OF...