Bronx Auto Mall, Inc. v. Am. Honda Motor Co., 113 F.3d 329 (2d Cir. 1997). · Go Syfert
Search
Bronx Auto Mall, Inc. v. Am. Honda Motor Co., 113 F.3d 329 (2d Cir. 1997). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
10 citation events (7 in the last 25 years) across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Beck Chevrolet v. Gen. Motors, No. 13-4066(L) (2d Cir. May 19, 2015)
How cited ↗
Cited for
At page 330 Prohibiting false reasons for dealership termination under the Act3 citing casesAuto Mall, Inc. (“Bronx Auto”) either on the basis of an existing notice of termination, or for Bronx Auto’s failure to complete certain renovations specified…opening of page *330 (no citing court says what it cites this page for)
  • Beck Chevrolet v. Gen. Motors, No. 13-4066(L) (2d Cir. May 19, 2015).published
    Honda Motor Co., 934 F. Supp. 596 , 608 22 Nos. 13‐4066, 13‐4310 Beck Chevrolet v. General Motors 1 (S.D.N.Y. 1996), affʹd on the opinion of the district court, 113 F.3d 329, 330 (2d Cir. 2 1997) (per curiam). 3 It is not clear, however, t…
  • Beck Chevrolet Co. v. Gen. Motors LLC, 787 F.3d 663 (2d Cir. 2015).published
    Honda Motor Co., 934 F.Snpp. 596, 608 (S.D.N.Y.1996), aff'd on the opinion of the district court, 113 F.3d 329, 330 (2d Cir.1997) (per curiam).
  • Gen. Motors Corp. v. Villa Marin Chevrolet, Inc., 240 F. Supp. 2d 182 (E.D.N.Y. 2002).published
    See, e.g., Perez v. New York State Dept. of Labor, 259 A.D.2d 161, 163-64 , 697 N.Y.S.2d 718, 720-21 (3rd Dep’t 1999); Bankers Trust Co. v. Hoovis, 263 A.D.2d 937, 939 , 694 N.Y.S.2d 245, 247 (3rd Dep’t 1999); Orix Credit Alliance, Inc. v.…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
BRONX AUTO MALL, INC., D/B/A Bronx Acura, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC., Defendant-Appellant
893, 1202, Dockets 96-9022, 96-9347.
Docket on CourtListener (RECAP)
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
May 12, 1997.
Published opinion
113 F.3d 329
1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 10705
Eric A. Portuguese, Lester Schwab Katz & Dwyer, New York City (Robert L. Weigel, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, on the brief), for defendant-appellant., Thomas C. Moore, New York City (Dale A. Schreiber, Steven A. Beede, Proskauer Rose Goetz & Mendelsohn, on the brief), for plaintiff-appellee.
Newman, McLaughlin, Owen.
Cited by 7 opinions  |  Published
PER CURIAM.

This appeal concerns the termination of an automobile dealer’s franchise. American Honda Motor Co. (“AHMC”) appeals from the August 2, 1996, judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Lewis A. Kaplan, Judge), enjoining AHMC, as franchisor, from terminating the franchise agreement of Bronx[*330] Auto Mall, Inc. (“Bronx Auto”) either on the basis of an existing notice of termination, or for Bronx Auto’s failure to complete certain renovations specified in that notice. In addition, AHMC appeals from the October 2, 1996, supplemental judgment awarding attorney’s fees and costs to Bronx Auto.

The principal issue is whether, even if the real reason motivating the franchisor’s termination of a dealership would have satisfied the “due cause” requirement of the Franchised Dealer Act of New York (the “Act”), it is an unfair business practice for a franchisor to indicate a pretextual reason in the written termination notice. See N.Y. Veh. & Traf. L. (Franchised Dealer Act) § 463(2)(d)(l) (McKinney 1996).

In a well-reasoned and thorough opinion, Judge Kaplan held that stating a false reason for termination of a dealership violates the Act’s prohibition of false business practices. In addition, he found that because AHMC had not demonstrated the reasonableness of its demand that Bronx Auto make certain substantial renovations at its dealership, AHMC could not insist on those renovations as a prerequisite to renewal of the franchise agreement. See id. § 463(2)(c). We agree with both conclusions, and therefore affirm on the opinion of the District Court. Bronx Auto Mall, Inc. v. American Honda Motor Co., 934 F.Supp. 596 (S.D.N.Y.1996). Because we find no abuse of discretion in the amount of the award of attorney’s fees, we also affirm the supplemental judgment.