Mark Kepenis, et al. v. Ro-Zap Enterprises, Inc., et al.

Used Car Lemon Law - Vehicle and Traffic Law - General Business Law - Unjust Enrichment - Breach of Warranty - Breach of Contract - Breach of the Uniform Commercial Code -Plaintiffs brought this action against the defendant which sold them a used car that ended up being substandard and basically broken down. The palintiffs bought the used car from a used dealership located in South Glens Falls, New York. The car was a 1992 For Ranger, and was bought for the price of $12,000 on Setember 5, 1996. It included a Retail Certificate of Sale, and a sixty -day or 3,000 mile warranty. The plaintiffs drove the vehicle to New Jersy and immediatly began experiencing problems. Plaintiff contacted the defendant and was told to take the vehicle to Kaytes Ford for an estimate. Kaytes Ford did substantial repairs to the vehicle, and the palintiff's were reimbursed by Carriage Traders. Shortly after this, however, the vehicle began malfunctioning again, and the plaintiff took the vehicle once again (pursuant to the instruction of an agent for the defendant) to Kaytes Ford. The plaintiff was told that there were serios defects in the vehicle, at which time the plaintiffs told the defendant of their desire to get a refund of the purchase price. At his point the defendant declined to pay for ant repair work by Kaytes Ford, and istructed the plaintiffs to have the vehicle towed to Carriage Traders. On October 18, 1996, the plaintiffs transported the vehicle to the defendant's premises. Defendant made some repairs, but contested the plaintiffs' claim, bolstered by the opinionof agents of Kaytes Ford, that the damages were extensive and included flood damage. Once again an agent of the defendant refused plaintiffs request for a refund pursuant to the Lemon Law. The palintiffs refused to retrieve the vehicle from the defendants lot. Plaintiffs filed an action that inlcuded nine causes of action: General Business Law, Vehicle and Traffic Laws, Fraud, Unjust Enrichment, Breach of Warranty, Breach of Contract, and Breach of Uniform Commercial Code.

Court found that dealer had reasonable opportunity to correct the defect; that interest, automobile insurance, and costs of towing were not recoverable under Lemon Law; affirmative defenses under Lemon Law were inapplicable; and fact issues precluded summary judgment with respect to remaining claims.

None

None

Motion was granted in part by the Supreme Court, Saratoga County. See: 686 N.Y.S.2d 248 (Sup. 1998). Reported by EMDH.