N'Sai A Hardeman-Blaylock, Claimant(s) v. Shady M Naser Jr, Defendant(s) (2026)

In this Small Claims action, both sides appeared pro se, for bench trial this 26th day of May 2026.

FACTS OF THE CASE

On December 24, 2025, claimant purchased a vehicle advertised by defendant on Facebook Market place. This was a 2010 Nissan Maxima which had been driven previously for approximately 114,000 miles. Claimant paid $4,000 for the vehicle. It is undisputed that claimant test drove the car before making the purchase. Defendant states that he purchased the vehicle at the auction. Admittedly, defendant is also a car dealer, who sells more than 3 vehicles per year.

It is undisputed that approximately 4 days after the purchase, an attempt to register the vehicle failed due to title issues. Claimant made multiple trips to DMV to obtain registration but all to no avail because of title-related issues. Further, the vehicle developed some faults soon after the purchase. Claimant took the vehicle to an auto mechanic workshop where it was discovered that the vehicle had several mechanical and other related issues/defects, including, but not limited to, leaking/damaged axles, bad suspension links, power steering problems, warning light tampering, oxygen sensor defects, catalytic converter failure, etc.

Claimant attempted to return the vehicle, but defendant would not accept the vehicle back because, according to defendant, claimant had already signed the title document to himself, even though registration was incomplete at the time. Claimant testified that he spent about $3,398 to correct these defects. He also testified, without dispute, that he spent time and money getting the vehicle properly registered to himself. Claimant testified that it took him approximately 5-6 months to fully resolve all these problems. He further testified that he could not drive the vehicle for those 5-6 months, and that he lost significant amount of income as a result, although he could not substantiate the income loss with competent, verifiable evidence. He stated that his job depended upon his ability to own and drive a car.

Claimant who lives in Long Island and works in Brooklyn testified that he incurred significant expenses commuting to Brooklyn from Long Island via LIRR and/or Uber daily.

Claimant also testified that he maintained vehicle insurance during these periods that the vehicle remained inoperable and unregistered, but he did not produce any clear proof of paying insurance for the subject vehicle during the period in question.

DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION OF LAW

As a primary issue, "Used Car Lemon Law" would not apply here. Lemon Law allows the purchaser of a used vehicle to exchange it for a comparable vehicle or return it for a refund if the vehicle was purchased for more than $1,500 from a party that sells three or more used cars a year, unless the car has been driven for more than 100,000 miles at the time of sale (See GBL § 198-b). Here, this law would not apply because the milage of the subject vehicle exceeded 100,000 at the time of sale.

Notwithstanding the inapplicability of Lemon Law, under New York law, there is an implied warranty that sold goods shall be merchantable if the seller is a merchant with respect to goods of that kind. Goods sold must be fit for the ordinary purposes for which such goods are used. UCC § 2-314 (1) provides, in pertinent part:

Unless excluded or modified (Section 2-316), a warranty that the goods shall be merchantable is implied in a contract for their sale if the seller is a merchant with respect to goods of that kind.

UCC § 2-314(1); See also Cumo v Bray, 57 Misc 3d 308, 62 N.Y.S.3d 746 (Glens Falls City Court 2017)

Regardless, a dealer may disclaim liability and thus exclude or negate this implied warranty of merchantability, but only if the disclaimer is written and conspicuous (see UCC 2-316). Here, defendant never offered any testimony that he disclaimed the implied warranty of merchantability. According to the law, the burden falls upon the seller to show that notice of this disclaimer was given.

UCC 318 states:

A seller's warranty whether express or implied extends to any natural person if it is reasonable to expect that such person may use, consume or be affected by the goods and who is injured in person by breach of the warranty. A seller may not exclude or limit the operation of this section

Further, under New York Vehicle and Traffic Law (VTL) § 417, used car dealers are required to provide a certification to buyers "[t]hat said motor vehicle complies with such requirements of this chapter . . . . And that it is in condition and repair to render, under normal use, satisfactory and adequate service upon the public highway at the time of delivery". This certification requirement cannot be waived. Here, no evidence was adduced, nor did defendant demonstrate that this requirement was met. The violation of this law, resulting in damages, entitles claimant to some measure of relief.

Additionally, claimant testified to serious title issues that prevented him from the use and enjoyment of the vehicle for a considerable period of time, which claim was acknowledged by defendant himself, who stated that he assisted with resolving the problem. This also would entitle claimant to some form of relief.

In light of the foregoing, defendant is in clear breach of the implied warranty of merchantability (UCC § 2-314) and serviceability (VTL§ 417). As a result of these statutory breaches, claimant suffered financial loss, incurred expenses to make the vehicle road worthy, lost time and money to resolve title issues associated with the vehicle, etc.

Although claimant asserts that he spent $3,398 to rectify these problems, it is uncertain whether the entire amount was necessarily incurred to make the car road worthy, or whether some of that money went to improve and/or upgrade the vehicle. The court, however, is unable to quantify the loss of work, if any, since claimant offered no evidence tending to show loss of wages. Also, claimant failed to substantiate the claim that he regularly paid for LIRR/Uber to commute to work during that period. He offered no such evidence. He offered no travel tickets, no LIRR commute receipts, no Uber receipts, and no bank/credit card statement(s) showing these expenses.

In support of his claim for damages, claimant is only able to substantiate the sum of $408.40 in receipts for parts purchased for the vehicle. The court would grant him another $500 for labor, and another $500 for the title issues relating to the vehicle, including commuting costs, if any.

Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that Claimant have judgment in the amount of $1,408.40.

This is the Decision and order of this court.

Date: 06/09/2026

Hon. Chidi A. Eze

Civil Court Judge (NYC)

Chidi A. Eze, J.