Crabtree Auto., Inc. v. BMW of North Am., 39 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. (West) 1198 (N.Y. App. Div. 1984). · Go Syfert
Search
Crabtree Auto., Inc. v. BMW of North Am., 39 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. (West) 1198 (N.Y. App. Div. 1984). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
18 citation events (3 in the last 25 years) across 4 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Gusel v. King (nyappdiv, 2026-05-19)
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers. How cited ↗
examined Cited as authority (rule) Gusel v. King (3×)
N.Y. App. Div. · 2026 · confidence medium
Thus, plaintiffs could not have brought this action as an article 78 proceeding, and the four-month statute of limitations does not apply ( see Matter of Save the Pine Bush v City of Albany, 70 NY2d 193, 204 [1987]; Costantakos v Board of Educ. of City of N.Y., 105 AD2d 825, 825 [2d Dept 1984]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Old Country Toyota Corp. v. Toyota Motor Distributors, Inc.
E.D.N.Y · 1997 · confidence medium
Though to the Court’s mind whether a dealership agreement properly falls under the UCC presents a difficult question, “New York courts explicitly have ruled that [the UCC] applies to a dealership agreement.” Wallach Marine Corp. v. Donzi Marine Corp., 675 F.Supp. 838, 840 (S.D.N.Y.1987) (Sweet, J.) (citing Crabtree Automotive, Inc. v. BMW of N. Am., 105 A.D.2d 825 , 482 N.Y.S.2d 28, 29 (App.Div.1984) (holding oral agreement to approve sale of BMW dealership void under UCC); Swerdloff v. Mobil Oil Corp., 74 A.D.2d 258 , 427 N.Y.S.2d 266, 267 (App.Div.1980) (holding oral promise to grant d…
discussed Cited "see" Butler v. Wing
N.Y. App. Div. · 2000 · signal: see · confidence high
(Solnick v Whalen, 49 NY2d 224 ; see, Costantakos v Board of Educ., 105 AD2d 825 .) There is no dispute that all of the offset determinations plaintiffs challenge were made more than four months before the commencement of this action.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Crabtree Automotive, Inc.
v.
BMW of North America
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Nov 26, 1984.
39 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. (West) 1198
1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 20949
Cited by 6 opinions  |  Published

In action to compel specific[*826] performance of an alleged oral agreement made by defendant BMW of North America Limited (BMW) to approve a sale of a BMW dealership by defendant Pace Oldsmobile, Inc., to plaintiff, the appeal is from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Marbach, J.), entered May 23, 1984, which denied plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction and granted the cross motion of BMW to dismiss the complaint.

Order affirmed, with costs.

The oral agreement by defendant BMW, allegedly made with plaintiff, to approve a sale of the BMW dealership owned by defendant Pace to plaintiff was unenforceable (Uniform Commercial Code, § 2-201; see Swerdloff v Mobil Oil Corp., 74 AD2d 258). We agree with Special Term that the conceptual differences between the granting of an original franchise and the consent by the franchiser to the transfer of a franchise to another are without legal substance insofar as section 2-201 of the Uniform Commercial Code is concerned (see Swerdloff v Mobil Oil Corp., supra). Both necessarily involve an agreement to purchase goods for the price of $500 or more. This is particularly so where a provision of the dealership agreement relating to transfer of the dealership was to the effect that upon BMW’s approval of a transfer it would offer the transferee the right to enter into a new agreement involving the purchase of goods in “the same form as the Agreement then currently offered by BMWNA to its Dealers”. Boyers, J. P., Rubin, Lawrence and Eiber, JJ., concur.