You are here: / / Vehicle Owner’s Uncontradicted Deposition Testimony Not Enough to Overcome P...
,

Vehicle Owner’s Uncontradicted Deposition Testimony Not Enough to Overcome Presumption Vehicle Driven with Owner’s Consent

The Second Department determined that the defendant vehicle owner (Witsell) did not overcome the presumption her vehicle was being driven with her consent:

Vehicle and Traffic Law § 388(1) “makes every owner of a vehicle liable for injuries resulting from negligence in the use or operation of such vehicle . . . by any person using or operating the same with the permission, express or implied, of such owner’”… .. Under this statute, there is a presumption that the operator of a vehicle operates it with the owner’s permission … . The presumption may be rebutted by substantial evidence that the owner did not give the operator consent …

Here, Witsell failed to establish her entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. … “The uncontradicted testimony of a vehicle owner that the vehicle was operated without his or her permission, does not, by itself, overcome the presumption of permissive use” … . Since Witsell failed to meet her initial burden as the movant, the burden never shifted to the party opposing the motion to raise a triable issue of fact… . Ellis v Witsell, 2014 NY Slip Op 00630, 2nd Dept 2-5-14

 

You might also like
STORM IN PROGRESS EVIDENCE IN THIS SIDEWALK SLIP AND FALL CASE INSUFFICIENT, EVIDENCE SUBMITTED IN REPLY PAPERS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
POST-VERDICT INTEREST IN THIS ACTION AGAINST THE NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT AUTHORITY SHOULD HAVE BEEN CALCULATED AT THREE PERCENT PURSUANT TO THE PUBLIC AUTHORITIES LAW (SECOND DEPT).
IF THE JUDGE DOES NOT LAY OUT IN DETAIL THE SPECIFIC CONDUCT JUSTIFYING A DISMISSAL OF AN ACTION FOR NEGLECT TO PROSECUTE, THE REQUIREMENTS FOR DISMISSAL PURSUANT TO CPLR 3216 ARE NOT MET AND THE SIX-MONTH PERIOD FOR THE FILING OF ANOTHER COMPLAINT (CPLR 205(A)) IS AVAILABLE (SECOND DEPT).
THE CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT’S SLIP AND FALL CALL COULD NOT BE IDENTIFIED, THE LIGHTER BURDEN OF PROOF PURSUANT TO THE NOSEWORTHY DOCTRINE DID NOT APPLY (SECOND DEPT).
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE ABSENCE OF A SECOND HANDRAIL, A VIOLATION OF THE BUILDING CODE, WAS A PROXIMATE CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S SLIP AND FALL IN A STAIRWAY, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
PROOF OF GENERAL INSPECTION PRACTICES DOES NOT DEMONSTRATE THE ABSENCE OF CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE; DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS ICE-ON-SIDEWALK SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
THE ONE YEAR TIME-LIMIT IN CPLR 3404 FOR A MOTION TO RESTORE AN ACTION TO THE CALENDAR DID NOT APPLY TO THIS CASE WHERE THE ACTION WAS ADMINISTRATIVELY DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT). ​
Requirements for an Easement In Favor of Public Use Not Met

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

Subcontractor Which Does Not Supervise or Control Injured Worker May Be Liable... Medical Malpractice Stemming from “Lack of Informed Consent” Explained/Signing...