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
Courts’ Limited Review Powers Re: Administrative Rulings Clearly Illustrated
THE COURT OF CLAIMS, NOT SUPREME COURT, IS THE PROPER FORUM FOR THIS DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACTION AGAINST THE STATE (FOURTH DEPT).
THE EVIDENCE OF ESCAPE IN THE FIRST DEGREE WAS LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT; DEFENDANT WAS NOT YET IN CUSTODY WHEN HE DROVE AWAY AS A POLICE OFFICER ATTEMPTED TO PULL HIM FROM HIS CAR (FOURTH DEPT).
Court Was Not Authorized to Deny a 440 Motion Without a Hearing Where People Submitted No Opposition to the Defendant’s Adequate Papers
Pleading Requirements for “Goods Sold and Delivered” Cause of Action Succinctly Explained
Question Posed by the Prosecutor to Prospective Black Jurors About Whether They Felt Police Officers Unfairly Target Members of the Minority Community Required Reversal
THE PEOPLE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE OFFICERS WHO MADE THE TRAFFIC STOP HAD THE TRAINING AND QUALIFICATIONS TO MAKE A VISUAL ESTIMATE OF THE SPEED OF A VEHICLE; THE SUPPRESSION MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT),
THE FACT THAT PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL ON “BLACK ICE” DOES NOT SUPPORT THE CONCLUSION THE ICE WAS NOT VISIBLE; THIS SLIP AND FALL COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED ON THE GROUND DEFENDANT DID NOT HAVE CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE CONDITION (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 © 2026 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...