MASTROVITO HYUNDAI v. Jackson Posloski, Respondent. (2026)

Petitioner Mastrovito Auto Group, Inc. d/b/a Mastrovito Hyundai ("Mastrovito") brings this proceeding pursuant to CPLR Article 75, seeking to vacate an arbitration award issued on July 10, 2025 under New York's Lemon Law (General Business Law § 198-b). Respondent Jackson Posloski ("Posloski") cross-petitions pursuant to CPLR § 7510 to confirm that same award and requests attorneys' fees and statutory costs under GBL § 198-b(f).

The underlying dispute arises from Posloski's purchase of a used 2015 BMW i8 (the "Vehicle") from Mastrovito on or about March 26, 2025. Shortly after purchase, the Vehicle required a series of service visits at Mastrovito's facility. Posloski thereafter filed a Request for Arbitration under the New York Lemon Law. A Lemon Law arbitration hearing was conducted via Zoom on July 2, 2025, before a single arbitrator appointed through Empowered Pathways of CNY. On or about July 10, 2025, the Arbitrator issued a Decision finding that the Vehicle was out of service for fifteen or more days within the warranty period and declaring the Vehicle a "lemon." The award directed a consumer refund.

Mastrovito timely filed the instant Petition within ninety (90) days of receiving the Decision, as required by CPLR § 7511(a). Posloski filed his Cross-Petition on January 15, 2026. The Petition and Cross-Petition were returnable on February 26, 2026. On that date, Michael Callan, Esq. appeared for Mastrovito and Nicholas Schmitt, Esq. and Cecelia Cannon, Esq. appeared with Mr. Posloski. Having, heard the arguments of the parties and having reviewed the submissions, the relevant record, and the applicable law, the Court will grant the Petition to vacate the arbitration award and will deny the Cross-Petition to confirm.

Discussion

Legal Standard

Under CPLR § 7511(b)(1), a court may vacate an arbitration award where the rights of a party were prejudiced by corruption, fraud, or misconduct in procuring the award; by the partiality of an arbitrator; or by the arbitrator's failure to follow the procedures of CPLR Article 75. Importantly, where the arbitration is statutorily mandated, courts apply closer judicial scrutiny to ensure the process conforms to the procedural protections the legislature intended (See Matter of Progressive Cas. Ins. Co. v. New York State Ins. Fund, 47 AD3d 633 [2d Dept 2008]).

General Business Law § 198-b, which governs New York's Lemon Law arbitration, explicitly requires that such mechanisms "ensure the personal objectivity of its arbitrators and the right of each party to present its case, to be in attendance during any presentation made by the other party and to rebut or refute such presentation" (GBL § 198-b). These procedural guarantees are not aspirational; they are mandatory.

CPLR § 7506(b) further requires that an arbitrator provide notice to all parties not less than eight (8) days before a hearing, by personal delivery or certified mail.

Due Process and Procedural Violations

The record before this Court establishes multiple significant procedural violations that, individually and collectively, deprived Mastrovito of its right to a fair hearing under both CPLR Article 75 and GBL § 198-b.

Inadequate Notice

CPLR § 7506(b) mandates at least eight days' advance notice of a hearing by personal delivery or certified mail. Here, Mastrovito first received notice of the July 2, 2025 hearing by email on June 25, 2025 only seven calendar days before the hearing. The required certified mailing was not received within the statutory eight-day window. The failure to provide proper statutory notice is not a technical defect; it is a prerequisite to a valid arbitration proceeding.

Unreasonably Short Response Deadline

Compounding the notice deficiency, Mastrovito was given only one business day, from the afternoon of June 25 through June 27, 2025, to gather its service records and submit a substantive response to the Lemon Law Complaint. This timeframe is unreasonable and further deprived Mastrovito of a meaningful opportunity to prepare its defense in violation of the spirit and intent of CPLR § 7506(b).

Denial of In-Person Arbitration

Mastrovito timely requested in-person arbitration. That request was refused without explanation, and the hearing was conducted via Zoom. While videoconference arbitration is not per se improper, the denial of a timely request for in-person proceedings, considered alongside the other deficiencies in this record, contributed to the fundamental unfairness of the proceeding.

Exclusion of Corporate Representative

The Court finds the exclusion of Mastrovito's designated corporate representative to be the most consequential procedural violation in this case and, standing alone, a sufficient basis to vacate the award. At the commencement of the July 2, 2025 hearing, Mastrovito's counsel appeared with Kristen Synakowski, the designated corporate representative of Mastrovito. The Arbitrator refused to admit Ms. Synakowski to the Zoom hearing on the ground that she was not a "disclosed witness." Counsel immediately objected, advising the Arbitrator that Ms. Synakowski was the corporate party representative, not merely a witness, and that the hearing administrator had never requested a witness list from Mastrovito. The Arbitrator, after an off-record consultation in a breakout room with the administrator, ruled that the arbitration would proceed and that Ms. Synakowski would not be allowed to participate.

This ruling directly violated GBL § 198-b, which expressly guarantees each party the right "to be in attendance during any presentation made by the other party and to rebut or refute such presentation." As a result of her exclusion, Mastrovito's corporate representative was unable to hear Posloski's testimony, observe the evidence presented, assist counsel, or participate in cross-examination. No party can be said to have received a fair hearing when its principal representative is barred from the proceeding entirely.

Failure to Provide Access to Rebuttal Materials

At the outset of the hearing, the Arbitrator disclosed that Posloski had submitted a written rebuttal and audio recordings in advance. Mastrovito's counsel had never received these materials. Counsel objected and requested either exclusion of the undisclosed rebuttal evidence or an adjournment to permit review. The Arbitrator denied both requests and proceeded with the hearing, thereby allowing Posloski to benefit from evidence that Mastrovito had no opportunity to review, respond to, or rebut.

This, too, directly contravenes GBL § 198-b's guarantee of the right to rebut or refute the other party's presentation. Where, as here, a party is confronted for the first time at the hearing itself with written submissions and audio recordings that form part of the evidentiary record, the resulting proceeding is fundamentally unfair.

The Court acknowledges Poloski's argument that Mastrovito waived any procedural objections by continuing to participate in the arbitration without lodging a formal protest, invoking CPLR § 7511(b)(1)(iv), which provides that the right to vacate an award for procedural defects is forfeited when a party proceeds "with the arbitration with notice of the defect and without objection" ( see e.g. Squire v. Henschel, 2 AD3d 737 [2d Dept 2003]). There is merit to this contention with respect to certain technical violations such as the failure to provide eight days' certified mail notice and the abbreviated time to respond to the Lemon Law Complaint. Here, however, a fundamental, non-technical violation followed, i.e. a violation of the statutory right, under General Business Law § 198-b, to have a party representative present throughout the hearing.

The waiver doctrine cannot be stretched to extinguish such a fundamental due process right. As Mastrovito's counsel argued, the waiver framework should not be applied in a manner that renders a party's rights illusory. Mastrovito's attorney faced an untenable choice, i.e. either abandon the hearing and suffer a near certain adverse ruling or proceed under protest and hope for the best. Where, as here, the arbitrator's exclusion of the corporate representative was improper, proceeding with the hearing cannot, as a matter of fairness and due process, constitute a waiver of the right to be heard through an authorized representative.

Conclusion

The Court finds that the cumulative effect of the above violations deprived Mastrovito of a meaningful opportunity to defend against Posloski's claims. The award rests on a single finding: that the Vehicle was out of service for fifteen or more days during the warranty period. Mastrovito disputes both the day-count methodology and the inclusion of ten days attributable to a pre-agreed windshield replacement. Mastrovito's representative should have an opportunity to attend, Mastrovito should receive the rebuttal materials in advance, and the hearing should be conducted with proper notice. The Court cannot speculate as to what a properly conducted arbitration would have yielded; that is for a new arbitration to determine.

The Cross-Petition to confirm the award is denied. Posloski's request for attorneys' fees and the $500 statutory award under GBL § 198-b(f) is likewise denied, as he is not the prevailing party in this proceeding.

NOW THEREFORE, it is

ORDERED, that the Petition of Mastrovito Auto Group, Inc. d/b/a Mastrovito Hyundai to vacate the arbitration award issued on or about July 10, 2025 be, and hereby is, GRANTED, and it is further

ORDERED, that the arbitration award dated July 10, 2025, in the above-captioned matter be, and hereby is, VACATED, and it is further

ORDERED, that the matter is remanded for a new arbitration proceeding conducted in compliance with the procedural requirements of CPLR Article 75 and General Business Law § 198-b, and it is further

ORDERED that the Cross-Petition of Jackson Posloski to confirm the arbitration award be, and hereby is, DENIED, and it is further

ORDERED, that Posloski's requests for attorneys' fees pursuant to GBL § 198-b(f)(5) and the statutory $500 award pursuant to GBL § 198-b(f)(3), be, and hereby is, DENIED.

Dated: May 28, 2026

Utica, New York

Hon. Louis P. Gigliotti, A.J.S.C.

Louis P. Gigliotti, J.