New York Lemon Law Blog

A typical New York Lemon Law case involves a vehicle that has been serviced repeatedly for the same problem, or has been out of service for repair for an unreasonable amount of time.  These are “inability to repair cases”.  I previously wrote a blog that concentrates on these types of cases. 

 There is also another kind of New York Lemon Law case which perhaps doesn’t get as much attention, but is just as important.  Refusal to repair cases.  These are cases where the vehicle is brought to the dealership for warranty repairs and the dealership is either unable to verify the consumer’s complaint (”cannot duplicate customer’s concern”), or it verifies that something is wrong with the car, but determine that the problem is not covered by the vehicle’s warranty.

Refusal to repair cases are more difficult to pursue because there is a fundamental disagreement between the consumer and the manufacturer.  The manufacturer believes that there is either nothing wrong with the car, or alternatively, that whatever is wrong with the car is not its responsbility.  On the other hand, in an inability to repair case, the manufacturer has attempted a repair, which implies that it recognizes something was wrong with the vehicle and that it was its responsibility to fix it.  In those cases, where there are sufficient repairs, a manufacturer will usually concede that it must repurchase or replace the vehicle, and it does so voluntarily.  This absolutely never happens in a refusal to repair situation.

Thus, refusal to repair cases must always be litigated or arbitrated.  An expert must be retained to inspect the vehicle, verify a defective condition, and testify about it.  The manufacturer will, of course, produce its own technical specialists who will testify that there is nothing wrong with the vehicle.  Ultimately, it can often come down to credibility, or if its an arbitration, the arbitrator’s test drive.

In addition to the evidentiary hurdles that consumers must get through in order to win their refusal to repair case, there is also a procedural step that often proves difficult.  Pursuant to the New York Lemon Law statute, the following steps must occur before a consumer can bring a refusal to repair case:

• The consumer must bring the defect to the attention of the dealership
• After the dealership refuses to commence repairs within 7 days of being notified of the defective condition, the consumer must write a letter to the manufacturer of the vehicle, notifying it of its dealership’s refusal to commence repairs, and demanding that it commence repairs within 20 days of its receipt of the notice.  I have provided a sample letter here which you can use as a template when drafting your own.
• The letter must be mailed via Certified Mail, with Return Receipt Requested (the two green slips at the post office), to the manufacturer, NOT the dealership.

The statute is very specific about how these steps must be carried out.  Of course its also important to keep a photocopy of your letter, keep the certified mail slip when its given back to you at the post office, and the return receipt slip when it is mailed back to you after the manufacturer receives your letter. 

There is one side benefit to these procedural hurdles.  When a manufacturer receives this type of letter, it will often contact you to make arrangements for one of its own technical specialists (instead of a dealership employee) to inspect the vehicle and conduct repairs if the defective condition is verified.  I have had plenty of situations where this type of 20 day notice letter has resulted in the customer’s vehicle finally being fixed.  And of course, any such repair can potentially be used in an inability to repair case.

One thing to note is that the 2 year / 18,000 mile Lemon Law presumption period applies to refusal to repair cases.  If you purchased or leased your vehicle more than 2 years ago, or have put on more than 18,000 miles, the refusal to repair provision of the New York Lemon Law is not applicable to your case.

I often advise individuals to prepare their own 20 day notice letter using the sample letter I provided as a template.  If you follow all of the steps in this article, and 20 days after receipt of your letter the manufacturer has still not commenced any repairs, you may have a Lemon Law case.  At that point you should call me or another New York Lemon Law attorney, who can then assist you in pursuing your case further.

Good luck!

 Imagine you knew someone who has a new car that unfortunately does not always slow down when he hits the brakes.  Once in a while the brakes just don’t work.  Now imagine you were his lawyer and you were forced to advise him to have his car fixed three more times before taking any action.  That just doesn’t seem right, does it?

 I have to tell my clients this on a regular basis.  The New York Lemon Law does not distinguish between run of the mill defects, and defects that can kill the driver.  In both situations you typically need to meet a presumption of 4 repairs for the same defect (with the defect continuing to persist after the 4th repair attempt), or 30 days out of service for repair, within the first 2 years or 18,000 miles, whichever comes first, in order to have a viable case.

Other states have dealt with this issue by updating their Lemon Law statutes to include a “safety lemon” provision.  Such a provision would  force an automobile manufacturer to repurchase or replace a vehicle if it is repaired one time for a potentially deadly problem, and that problem continued to persist after that repair. 

While other states have taken steps over the years to modernize their versions of the law, our politicians in New York have neglected this important statute.  Thus, I have mailed a letter to Governor Spitzer, along with other NYS political leaders, urging them to add a ’safety lemon’ provision to the statute, along with several other improvements.

You can view a PDF scan of the letter here. In order to try and bring some additional attention to this matter, I have also issued a Press Release, which you can view here.

In recent news, both GM and Chrysler have recently suspended operations at several manufacturing plants as a result of problems with their part suppliers. 

 We’ll start with GM.  American Axle Corp. was spun off from GM in 1994.  Its former parent is still its biggest client, representing 80% of its business.  It supplies truck and SUV parts to GM.  Or at least it did until recently.  In order to compete with its rivals, it released plans to cut hourly labor costs from its current $70 per employee down to between $20 and $30.   Not surprisingly, the United Auto Workers Union went on strike.  

 On to Chrysler.  Most recently, it shut down a minivan plant in Windsor, Ontario.  The Canadian Auto Workers Union at TRW Automotive walked off the job on February 28 after failing to reach a contract with their employer.  This problem for Chrysler is in addition to other recent difficulties.  Last month, a company called Plastech filed for Bankruptcy protection.  This caused Chrysler to temporarily shutter five plants, with a potential shut down of all 14 Chrysler facilities as a result of not having access to the over 500 parts sold to it by Plastech. A temporary agreement kept the parts coming, but its set to expire on March 3.  In the mean time, Chrysler lost a motion before the Bankruptcy Court to compel Plastech to turn over tooling used to make those 500 parts.  So Chrysler had better hope that further deals can be reached to keep those parts coming.

From a New York Lemon Law perspective, this could get interesting.  Imagine you were the CEO of American Axle Corp.  GM represents 80% of your business.  If GM said they were going to pay you 75% of what they used to pay you for the same parts, what can you do?  If you want to stay in business, your going to give GM what it wants.  After that, you will try to cut expenses enough to stay in business.  The predictable results:  strikes and bankruptcies for suppliers, plant shutdowns for automobile manufacturers.  And possible lemon law cases as vehicles are unable to be repaired due to a shortage of replacement parts.

Truth be told, GM and Chrysler can use a little down time.  They have enormous inventories built up to weather this storm.  I am sure that this factored in to their decision to squeeze their suppliers.  However, these types of things have a way of getting out of hand. 

In the mean time, if your car is being repaired, and your service advisor has requested that you take the vehicle home until parts arrive, SAY NO.  You WANT your car to sit at the dealership.  You are absolutely helping the manufacturer when you take the vehicle back before its fixed, as you lose days out of service for repair.  You are well within your rights to ask the dealership to hold the vehicle until it can be fixed.  There is no reason for you to be driving a defective vehicle.