Opinion ID: 2036626
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Matter of DaimlerChrysler Corporation v Spitzer

Text: Petitioners DaimlerChrysler Corporation, General Motors Corporation and Saturn Corporation (collectively, the manufacturers) object to the Attorney General's new interpretation of the statute to the extent that it permits consumers relying on the repair presumption to seek relief when their vehicles have been fixed after more than four attempts. The manufacturers commenced CPLR article 75 proceedings to vacate a series of arbitration awards in which the arbitrators had applied the Attorney General's new construction of the repair presumption in granting relief to consumers. [2] The courts vacated the awards, determining that a consumer relying on the repair presumption must demonstrate that the defect continues to exist at the time of the arbitration hearing. [3] Relying on these decisions, the manufacturers brought this CPLR article 78 proceeding to enjoin the Attorney General and respondent New York State Dispute Resolution Association from using the new interpretation of General Business Law § 198-a (d) (1) in the Lemon Law arbitration system. [4] Supreme Court denied the petition and dismissed this proceeding. The Appellate Division affirmed. We granted the manufacturers leave to appeal.