M&A Motors v. General Motors, LLC

M&A Motors v General Motors, LLC 2025 NY Slip Op 31636(U) April 24, 2025 County Court, Suffolk County Docket Number: Index No. 613243/2024 Judge: Evan M. Zuckerman Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York State and local government sources, including the New York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service.

This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication.

SHORT FORM ORDER INDEX NO. 613243/2024 :oUNTY COURT - STATE OF NEW YORK l.A.S. TERM PART 68- SUFFOLK COUNTY PRESENT: HON. EVA:!' M. ZUCKERMAN Acting Judge County Court ORIG. RETURN DATE: FEBRUARY 13, 2025 FINAL SUBMISSION DATE: MARCH 6, 2025 M&A MOTORS, MTN. SEQ. #: 001 MOTION: MD Plaintiff, PLAINTIFF'S ATTORNEY: ROBERT L .-\RLEO, ESQ., P.C.

1345 :\VENL'J•: OF THE .-\t-.lERIC-\S GENERAL MOTORS, JJ,C and JS 33RD FLOOR H UNTlNGTON J\'f O'l'ORS LLC d / b/a NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10105 EMPIRE CHEVROLET OJ HUNTINGTON, (212) 551-1115 Defendants. ATTORNEY FOR GM MOTORS: RICCI TYRRELL.JOHNSON & GREY 1515 1v1ARKET STREET - SUITE 1800 PHILJ\DELPHir\, PA 19102 (215) 320-3260 ATTORNEY FOR HUNTINGTON MOTORS SIMMONS J1\NNACE DELUCA, LLP CORPORA'lE DRIVE H.AUPPJ\UCE, NY 11788 (631) 873-4888 Upon the folk wing papers numbered 1 to _ 1_5 _ read on this mo tion FOR SUMlVIARY JUDGMENT Notice of Motion, supportin~ papers an<l Memorandum of Law in Support ..1.=1._; GM MOTORS' .-\ffirmation in Opposi6on, upporting papers and Memorandum of Law in Opposition-2:.I_; Hl'NT INGTON J\IOTOR.S' -\ffirmation in Opposition, supporting papers and l\kmorandum o f Law in Opposition 8-10; Plaintiffs Reply Affirmation and supporting papers 11 -13 · HUNTINGTON MOTORS' letter dated Novernber 15, 2024 J...1; Plaintiffs letter dated November 17, 2024 .!.i.: it is, ORDERED that the motion by plaintiff M&T iv1OTORS for an Order granting summary judgment in its fa,·or against c efendants pursuant to CPLR 3212 is hereby DENIED.

Thjs is an ac6on for d mages as:;o ciatcd with the alleged failure of: (1) defendant JS H UNTI 1GTON J\IOTORS, ...LC d/b/ a E MPIRE CHEVROLET OF H UNTINGTON

[* 1] M&A MOTORS v GM MO ORS, ET AL. ZUCKERM AN,].

INDEX NO. 613243/202 4 PAGE 2 (Huntington Motors) to proptly repair a 2020 Gl\[C Sierra (hereinafter " the Sierra"); and (2) defendant GMC J\IOTORS, I C ("GMC") to ho nor a manufactur er's warranty o n the Sierra.

Plaintiff interposed claims of trict producrs liability, negligence, b reach of express warrant)·, and breach of the impl.icd warran · of merchantabi lity against Gt\{C, and a claim of negligenct: against Huncington Motors.

This action was com cnccd by the filing of a Summons and Vcrified Complaint on !\fa~• 30, 2024. Issue was joined by de ndant Huntington t\lotors by service of its Verified .-1. nswcr on.July 12, 2024, and by <lcfcndant G [C br sen·ice of its Verified .\nswer on .August 9, 2024.

Plaintiff alleges it bou ht the Sierra o n January 10, 2022 from a non-pany prirntc seller for the sum of $52,000. Plaintiff !aims that, at the time o f the purchase, the Sierra was still covered by G:'.\IC's manufacture r's warraJt)·. On January 14, 2022, plaintiff allegedly brought the Sierra to Huntington Chevrolet, a pred 'Cessor to Huntington Motors, for repair clue to an oil leak. Over a period of months, the oil leak was allegedly repaired, but the Sierra would no longer start. Plaintiff alleges it subsequentl y made at least si.-.; im1uiries to Huntington Chevrolet about repairing the Sierra.

Plaintiff clain1s that in Scpte1ber 2023, it was infotmed that the Sierra was 1110,·ed to Huntington t-.Iotors, where there was a diesel mechanic who could repair the Sierra. Plain Liff alleges that the repair was not done and it pu GMC on notice that it wanted the manufacrurer"s warranty honored because the Sierra was inoperpblc.

Plaintiff now moves for summary judgment tn its favor on the claims against Huntingto n Motors and GMC. Because 1ere are uiable issues of fact presented. plaintiffs motion is hereby DENIE D .

On a m otion for su ary ju<lgmcnt, the movant has the burden to show that it is entitled to judgment as m:ttter of law ~nd that there are no disputed issues of material fact (CPLR 3212; a Matter of New York City A'.sbestos Litig., 33 Y3d 20, 99 NYS3d 734 [2019]). If the mo,·ant met:rs its burden, then the nj n -movant must show that therc is a material issue of fact to be rcsoh-ed at trial (Matter of Eighth Juel. Dist. Asbestos Litig., 33 NY3d 488, 105 NYS3d 353 [2019]). If the mornnt docs not meet it burden, then the motion must be denied without consideratio n of anr opprn;ing papers (Vega v Re tani Constr. Corp., 18 NY3d -1-99, 942 NYS2d 13 [2012]). On summary judgment, the Cou t must view the CYiclencc in the light must faYorable to the non-mo,·ing parry (id.) . A plaintiff docs not need to show the ahsence of comparari,·e fault to obtain partial

[* 2] M&A MOTOR S v GM MO ORS, ET AL. ZUCKE RMAN ,].

INDEX NO. 613243/2024 PAGE 3 YS3d 898 summary judgmen t on liabilicy/(Rodrigu ez v City of New York, 31 NY3d 312, 76 [2018]). "Under New York's r odern approach to products liability, a product has a defect that ruring renders the manufac turer [stri tly] liable for the resulting injuries if it: (1) contains a manufac the use of the flaw; (2) is defectively Jcsignc ; or (3) is not accompa nied by adequate warnings for product" (Matter of New Yo k City Asbesto s Litig., 27 NY3d 765, 787, 37 N YS3d 72312016] NYS3d 445 !quotatio n marks and citation. ornitrcd]; sec Samyn v Ariens Co .. 177 ,\D3d 917, 114 le for [2d Dept 20191). "Strict prod cts liability for defective products applies to '[those) responsib rs of placing the defcctiYe product· the markctplace[,I' including 'distribut ors, retailers, processo l\lisc 3d 576, materials[,] and makers of co poncnt parts' " (Gallusc io v Atico Intl. U.S., Inc., 41 152 AD2d 577,971 NYS2d 190 [Sup Ct, Nassau County 2013), quoting Brumba ugh v CEJJ, Inc., 69, 71, 547 r YS2d 699 [3d Of pt 1989]; sec Morales v City of New York, 193 .-\D3cl 923, 147 .AD3d 883, YS3d 592 [2d Dept 2021]; tj,1iele Auto Parts, Inc. v Automo tive Capital, LLC, 109 972 NYS2d 579 l2d Dept 20113]). "To establish a prima facie case of strict products liability predicate d o n [a] manufacrucing product was defect, a plaintiff mu:;t prove hat the product did not perform as intended and that the 965, 968, 783 defectin when it left the ma ufacrure r's co ntrol" (\'Vesp v Carl Zeiss, Inc., 11 .-\D3d [3d NYS2d 439 [4th Dcpr 2004]; ·ee Lyall v Justin Boot Co., 194 AD3d 1237, 148 NYS3d 20011). "In Dept 2021]; Santorelli v Apple & Eve, L.P., 282 AD2d 731, 724 NYS2d 352 (2d Dept built to order to succeed on such a cl im, a plaintiff must establish that the product was not design" specifications or that the proyuct, :is construc ted, deviated from such specifica tions or (McArdl e v Navista r Intl. 9orp.,293 ,-\O2d 931,932, 742 NYS2d 146 [3d Dept 2002] [quotation (4th marks and citations omitted] ; see Repka v Arctic Cat, Inc., 20 r\O3d 916, 798 1'l'\'S2d the intended Dept 2005]). ,\ defective ma~mfacruri ng claim is evaluated "withou t regard to whether mishap in the design of the manufac turer ~ as safe or not," as the "defects [muse] rel'uk from some were used in manufac turing process itself, imprope r workman ship, or because defective materials [2d Dept construc tion" (Pierre -Louis v DeLong hi Arn., Inc., 66 AD3d 859,861 ,887 NYS2d 2009] !quotatio n marks and itations omitted]). of The implied warrant)[ o f merchantability (UCC 2-314) "provide s for a minimal level lquotarion quality" (Denny v Ford Mokor Co., 87 N\'2d 248, 258 n -l, 639 NYS2d 250 [1995)

[* 3] M&A MOTORS v GM MO ORS, ET AL. ZUCKERMAN, J.

INDEX NO. 613243/ 2024 PAGE4 marks and citations omitted]; cc NY PJI 2:142, Comment ["recovery may be obtained upon a showing that the product was o t minimally safe for its expected purposes"]). Specifically, "[rjhe implied warranty of merchant bility is a guarantee by the seller that its goods are fit for the intended purpose for which they are us d and that they will pass in the trade without objection" (Wojcik v Empire Forklift, Inc., 14 ;\ 3d 63, 66, 783 NYS2d 698 [3d Dept 2004] [quotatio n marks :md citations omitted]). 1\ claim u dcr the implied warranty o f merchantability is not identical to a products liability claim. The "ffcrence between the two claims is that a products liability claim e,·aluatcs whether a product i rea$onably safe and invokes a balancing of the utility of the product against its risks, while an imp ed warranty of merchantabilit}' claim is ba$c<l on fitness for ordinary use in the contract realm with ut any balancing analysis (Denny v Ford Motor Co., supra; Wojcik v Empire Forklift, I nc., sup a). ".Analysis of a Yiolation o f l'CC 2-314, therefore, im·olves fact issues, o ften complex, regard· g the suitability of the product for its intended use and the reasonable expectations of the purchaser' (Fahey v A.O. Sm ith Corp., 77 r\O3d 612, 617, 908 NYS2J 719 12d D ept 20101).

To establish a cause o action for breach of an express warranty, a plaintiff must demonstrate that the defcnda t breached a specific representation made by that defendant regarding a product upon which the bu er relied (Aracena v BMW ofN. Am., LLC, 159 .--\D3d 664, 7 1 N YS3d 614 [2d Dept 20181). Pursuant to UCC 2-313 (1) (a) and (b), "any description o f the.goods, or affirmation of fact[,] or pr misc relating to the goods, which is made pan of the basis of the bargain[,] creates an express, rarrant)· that the goods shall conform to such description, affirmationl,] or promise" (N'gro v L ee, 63 1\D3d 1490, 1491, 882 NYS2d 346 l3d Dept 2009]). \v'hether an action "i pleaded in strict products liability, breach of warranty[,) or negligence, it is a consumer's burden to s ow ' "that the defect complained of existed at the time the product left the manufacturer or enti in the line of distribution being sued"' (Santorelli v Apple & Eve, L.P., supra, 282 .--\D2d at 73 , quoting Tardella v RJR Nabisco, 178 .-\O2d 737,737,576 NYS2d 965 [3d Dept 19911).

Here, plaintiff failed o satisfy its prima facie burden of en titlement to the drastic remedy of summary judgment on its cla s. A mong other things, triable issues of fact arc presented whetl1cr: (1) the Sierra was negligently epaircd; (2) the Sierra was a Jefecti,·e product and, if ~o. whether the defect existed at the time it l ft the factory; (3) the manufacturer's warranty wa~ in effect at the ti.me

[* 4] M&A MOTORS v GM MO ORS, ET AL. ZUCKERMAN,].

INDEX NO. 613243/2024 PAGES of the repairs; (4) any modific tions had been made to the Sierra that could ,·oid the manufacturer•~ warranty; and (5) plaintiff gav G~IC proper notice w1der the warranty. 1 These are all issues that the trier of fact must determine. .-\ccordingly, plaintiff ailed to satisfy its prima facic burden , and its motion for summary • judgment is denied.

The foregoing consci tes the decision and Order o f the Court.

Dated: April 24, 2025

_ _ FINAL DI POSITION --=-X.,,___ NON-FINAL DISPOSITION

1 In the interest of judi ial economy, 1hc Court considered the factual affidavits and exhibits plaintiff included with its reply in suppo t of the motion. as well as the letters dated No\·cmbcr 15. 202-4 and November 17, 2024-.

[* 5]