Main Menu

Used Car Purchase / New Car Lemon Law

Case Type:   Used Car Purchase / New Car Lemon Law
Case:   Judith Pedersen v. Audi of America
Plaintiff Attorney(s):   Anthony T. Ballato, Esq., Massapequa, NY
Defendant Attorney(s):   Audi of America, Auburn Hills, MI and Nicole B., Case Coordinator Customer Resolution Center
Facts:   On December 1, 2015, consumer Judith Pedersen purchased a used 2015 Audi A3 from Audi Lynbrook, New York. On October 11, 2016, the consumer had to have the vehicle towed to Atlantic Audi in West Isip. The consumer alleges that the vehicle was misfiring. The technician found that the spark plugs needed to be replaced. On December 17, 2016, the consumer brought the vehicle in for service alleging that the low oil warning light was on. The technician added oil to the vehicle. On December 31, 2016, the consumer brought the vehicle in for service alleging that the vehicle was bucking and misfiring while driving on the highway. The technician determined that the coil pack was faulty. An oil consumption test was also being performed. On January 3, 2017, the consumer brought the vehicle in for service alleging that the check engine light was on and that the car was misfiring. The diagnosis was a failed ignition coil. On January 26, 2017, the consumer brought the vehicle to her local mechanic for inspection. She was informed the vehicle failed the inspection because they found codes. On January 28, 2018, the consumer brought the vehicle to Atlantic Audi for inspection. The technician could not clear the codes to inspect the vehicle, the computer had to be reset. On February 8, 2018, the consumer brought the vehicle back in for service alleging the vehicle had a low oil warning light on. The technician measured the oil consumption. The consumer had to bring the vehicle back for service on March 24, 2017, for part two of the oil consumption test. The diagnosis was that the pistons and rings needed to be replaced. The consumer received the vehicle back a week later. On June 3, 2017 the vehicle was brought in for service because of an electronics malfunction warning. The message was to put the car in park before exiting the vehicle. The technician’s diagnosis was that there was a faulty gear. On June 19, 2017, the consumer brought the vehicle in for service because there was oil in her driveway. The diagnosis was an oil leak on upper timing chain cover and the gear selector was replaced. On August 15, 2017, the consumer brought the vehicle in once again for oil leaking on her driveway. The technician found that the head cover was leaking. Once again on September 12, 2017, oil was leaking on the driveway. The technician found oil was leaking on the hose and 0 rings. The technician found that oil was still leaking and that there was a leak in the rear main seal. The consumer brought the car in for further repairs for the air conditioner and oil leaks.
Verdict:   After multiple attempts to fix the vehicle and over 100 days out of service, the consumer hired Anthony T. Ballato, Esq. of Massapequa NY to represent her. Mr. Ballato sent a demand letter to the manufacturer Audi of America demanding that they repurchase the consumer’s vehicle pursuant to Notice Pursuant to New Car Lemon Law; New York General Business Law Article 11-A, Sections 198-A, Et Seq.,; Notice of Revocation of Acceptance and Demand for Rescission Uniform Commercial Code Article 2; Claims Under Manufacturer’s Warranties and Magnusson-Moss Warranty Act; and Demand for All Sales, Financing and Service Documents. After conversations, correspondence and emails with Sandra L., Case Coordinator, Customer Resolution and Retention of Audi of America, she advised the Manufacturer would settle the matter. The Manufacturer agreed to replace the used Car (under New Car Warranty) with a New Car for no extra charge worth over $12,000.00 more than the cost of the used car. The replacement was considered a substitution of collateral, including legal fees to Mr. Ballato in the amount of $1,500.00.

Lemon Law Cases