You are here: / / Driver’s Statement In a Plea Proceeding that She Did Not Have Permission t...
,

Driver’s Statement In a Plea Proceeding that She Did Not Have Permission to Use Defendant-Owner’s Vehicle at the Time of the Accident Insufficient to Overcome Statutory Presumption Of Operation with Owner’s Consent

The Second Department determined defendant (Tumbiolo) had not overcome the presumption that the driver (Commisso) of Tumbiolo’s vehicle was operating the vehicle with Tumbiolo’s permission:

Vehicle and Traffic Law § 388 creates a strong presumption that the driver of a vehicle is operating it with the owner’s consent, which can only be rebutted by substantial evidence demonstrating that the vehicle was not operated with the owner’s permission” … . “Although the rule is not absolute or invariable, in most cases uncontradicted disavowals of permission by both the owner of the vehicle and the driver will constitute substantial evidence negating permissive use and entitle the owner to summary judgment”… . * *

…[T]o the extent that Tumbiolo seeks to utilize a transcript of a plea proceeding dated October 21, 2011, wherein Commisso answered “[n]o” when asked if she had “permission” to “take” the subject vehicle, Commisso’s prior statement is not admissible under the provisions of CPLR 4517. Further, Commisso’s prior statement would be admissible as an “admission by a party” only as against Commisso, not as against the plaintiff … . Additionally, Tumbiolo failed to show that Commisso’s prior statement would be admissible as a declaration against pecuniary, proprietary, or penal interest, which are exceptions to the rule against hearsay (… Jerome Prince, Richardson on Evidence § 8-403 [Farrell 11th ed 2008]). Diaz v Tumbiolo, 2013 NY Slip Op 07930, 2nd Dept 11-27-13

 

 

You might also like
PLAINTIFF WAS NOT INJURED ON THE CONSTRUCTION SITE, LABOR LAW 241(6) CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, LABOR LAW 200 AND NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION WERE VIABLE HOWEVER, USE OF ALIAS WAS NOT A FRAUD UPON THE COURT.
PLAINTIFF FATHER WAS AWARDED SOLE CUSTODY OF THE CHILD IN AN ORDER THAT DIRECTED MOTHER TO “STAY AWAY” FROM FATHER AND CHILD; FATHER ASKED THE POLICE FOR HELP IN SERVING THE ORDER AND PICKING UP THE CHLID; MOTHER WOULD NOT LET THE POLICE INTO HER HOME; DISTRICT ATTORNEYS ADVISED THAT THE POLICE COULD NOT ENTER MOTHER’S HOME; THE NEXT DAY MOTHER MURDERED THE CHILD; THE COMPLAINT AGAINST THE MUNICIPAL DEFENDANTS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DIISMISSED; PLAINTIFF DEMONSTRATED A SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP WITH THE MUNICIPALITY AND THE MUNICIPALITY DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT WAS ENTITLED TO GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTION IMMUNITY (SECOND DEPT).
THE DIVORCE STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT REQUIRED DEFENDANT TO PAY THE CHILDREN’S COLLEGE EXPENSES FOR FOUR YEARS AND DID NOT MENTION AN AGE CUT-OFF; SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DETERMINED DEFENDANT’S OBLIGATION CEASED AT AGE 21 (SECOND DEPT).
THE UCC CRITERIA FOR PROOF OF POSSESSION OF A LOST NOTE WERE NOT MET; PLAINTIFF BANK THEREFORE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT HAD STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
EXCEPTION TO THE MOOTNESS DOCTRINE DID NOT APPLY AFTER THE UNDERLYING ACTION WAS SETTLED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT). ​
AN ORDER TO EFFECT SERVICE OF PROCESS IN A MANNER WHICH CANNOT BE COMPLIED WITH PRECLUDES PERSONAL JURISDICTION; PETITIONER DID NOT PRESENT SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OF ELECTION FRAUD (SECOND DEPT).
ONE DEFENDANT BREACHED A CONTRACT; THE OTHER DEFENDANT TORTIOUSLY INTERFERED WITH PLAINTIFF’S PROSPECTIVE BUSINESS RELATIONS; THE JURY AWARDED SEPARATE DAMAGE-AMOUNTS FOR EACH DEFENDANT; SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE HELD BOTH DEFENDANTS JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY LIABLE FOR THE COMBINED AMOUNT OF DAMAGES (SECOND DEPT). ​
THE MAJORITY DETERMINED DEFENDANT’S ARGUMENT HIS GUILTY PLEA WAS NOT VOLUNTARILY ENTERED WAS NOT PRESERVED; THE DISSENT ARGUED DEFENDANT WAS NOT ADEQUATELY INFORMED OF HIS BOYKIN RIGHTS AND THE CONVICTION SHOULD BE REVERSED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (THIRD DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Defendant Not Prejudiced by Disposal of Damaged Goods (Spoliation)/Lost Profits... Strict Foreclosure and Reforeclosure Actions Not Available Against Easement...