Nj Judge Cited A Non-existent Provision To Dismiss My Consumer Fraud Act Case — Is This Reversible Legal Error?

Location: Hudson County, New Jersey

Background:

I purchased a brand-new 2025 Honda Pilot from a NJ car dealership for $53,074. Upon delivery, I discovered undisclosed pre-existing damage to the rear leather seat.

When I requested repair, the Sales Manager sent me a written text message stating:

"Now I would like you to change this survey or I will not help you at all."

This explicitly conditioned warranty repair on changing my Honda manufacturer survey score. Fail to fix this matter over 92 days. Still not fixed. I have two independent authorized Honda dealer estimates confirming the damage requires full OEM replacement ($1,193 and $1,330). The same dealership was fined $1.8 million under CFA in 2014 for identical violations.

What happened at trial:

At my Small Claims trial on May 6, 2026, the judge said the following (confirmed by court audio transcript):

"Did you read the whole thing of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act? Did you see the section that says 'This act does not apply to the sales of motor vehicles.' Did you read the part that it is not applicable to cars? That's section 56:8-2. So, if your only cause of action is under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, it can't give you relief."

My case was dismissed based on this statement.

However, I have read N.J.S.A. 56:8-2 in full. There is NO such provision excluding motor vehicles. In fact, N.J.A.C. 13:45A-26A specifically regulates deceptive practices by automobile dealerships under the CFA.

My questions:

1. Does this provision actually exist in N.J.S.A. 56:8-2?
2. Is citing a non-existent statutory provision grounds for appeal?
3. What is the standard for reversible legal error in NJ appellate courts?

I have the full court audio transcript confirming the judge's exact words. Considering filing an appeal. Any guidance appreciated.