You are here: / / CITY IS NOT LIABLE FOR ACCIDENT WHICH OCCURRED WHEN AN UNLICENSED CAR-WASH...
, ,

CITY IS NOT LIABLE FOR ACCIDENT WHICH OCCURRED WHEN AN UNLICENSED CAR-WASH ATTENDANT WAS DRIVING A POLICE VAN.

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the city’s motion for summary judgment in this car-accident case should have been granted. Plaintiff was struck by a police van driven by an unlicensed car-wash attendant. The city was not liable for negligently entrusting the vehicle to the unlicensed driver because, inter alia, there was no duty to make sure the attendant had a license before handing over the keys to him. In addition, the city was not vicariously liable as the owner of the van pursuant to Vehicle and Traffic Law 388. Police vehicles are statutorily exempt from such liability. Plaintiff argued that the exemption did not apply because the van was not being “operated” by the police department at the time of the accident. The First Department held that “operated” in this context means “to exercise power over,” and not “driven:”

 

Plaintiff’s argument that the NYPD traffic van does not qualify as a “police vehicle,” because it was not being “operated by the police department” at the time of the accident, but, rather, was being “operated” by the car wash attendant, assumes that the term “operated” means “to cause to function” (Merriam- Webster Online Dictionary, http://beta.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/operate [accessed Jan. 27, 2016]) or is a substitute for the word “driven.” This ignores the common use of the term “operated” as an intransitive verb meaning “to exert power or influence” (id.). Under plaintiff’s interpretation, a police vehicle would not qualify as such under Vehicle and Traffic Law § 132-a, unless it was being driven by “the police department,” which strains common sense, since a police department cannot be the driver of a vehicle.

More importantly, plaintiff’s interpretation would strip the exemption provided to police vehicles in Vehicle and Traffic Law § 388(2) of its force and effect. Vehicle and Traffic Law § 388 specifically contemplates that someone, other than the vehicle’s owner, is driving the vehicle when an injury occurs. If “police vehicles” are only exempted when an owner or owner equivalent is driving, there would be no need for the exemption in Vehicle and Traffic Law § 388(2). This interpretation is untenable as it would render the police vehicle exemption in Vehicle and Traffic Law § 388(2) meaningless … . Guevara v Ortega, 2016 NY Slip Op 01106, 1st Dept 2-16-16

 

NEGLIGENCE (CITY NOT LIABLE FOR ACCIDENT WHICH OCCURRED WHEN UNLICENSED CAR-WASH ATTENDANT WAS DRIVING POLICE VAN)/MUNICIPAL LAW (CITY NOT LIABLE FOR ACCIDENT WHICH OCCURRED WHEN UNLICENSED CAR-WASH ATTENDANT WAS DRIVING POLICE VAN)/VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW (CITY NOT LIABLE FOR ACCIDENT WHICH OCCURRED WHEN UNLICENSED CAR-WASH ATTENDANT WAS DRIVING POLICE VAN)

You might also like
INSURER OF RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES NOT ENTITLED TO RECOVER ALL CLAIMS PAID OUT AS A RESULT OF 50% OF THE UNDERLYING MORTGAGES GOING INTO DEFAULT UNDER A FRAUD THEORY, ONLY A BREACH OF CONTRACT THEORY WAS AVAILABLE (FIRST DEPT).
DEFENSE COUNSEL’S FAILURE TO OBTAIN EXPERT OPINION EVIDENCE CONSTITUTED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL, THE CASE TURNED ON WHETHER DEFENDANT WAS INTOXICATED, THE INTOXILYZER RESULTS WERE INCONSISTENT, CONVICTION REVERSED (FIRST DEPT).
7/8 INCH HEIGHT DIFFERENTIAL BETWEEN THE FLOOR AND DOORWAY THRESHOLD WAS DEEMED TRIVIAL AS A MATTER OF LAW IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE; THE NYC BUILDING CODE, WHICH REQUIRES A HEIGHT DIFFERENTIAL OF NO MORE THAN 1/2 INCH, DID NOT APPLY TO THE HOME PURCHASED IN 1980 (FIRST DEPT).
Twenty-Day Time-Limit for Making an Application to Stay Arbitration Starts When the Notice or Demand for Arbitration Is Received, Not When It Is Mailed/An Application for a Stay of Arbitration Is “Made” When It Is Filed/Appellate Court May Consider a Purely Legal Issue Raised for the First Time on Appeal
PLAINTIFF’S VERDICT IN THIS SUBWAY ACCIDENT CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN SET ASIDE; PLAINTIFF WAS STRUCK BY A TRAIN AND ALLEGED THE ALLOWED SPEED FOR ENTERING A STATION WAS TOO HIGH; DEFENDANT TRANSIT AUTHORITY SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO PRESENT EVIDENCE THAT SPEED STUDIES HAD BEEN CONDUCTED IN SUPPORT OF THE QUALIFIED IMMUNITY DEFENSE (FIRST DEPT).
THE SIX-MONTH GRACE PERIOD FOR FILING A NEW ACTION AFTER DISMISSAL (CPLR 205 (A)) DOES NOT APPLY IF THE UNDERLYING STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR THE ACTION HAS NOT RUN; PLAINTIFF WAS FREE TO COMMENCE ANOTHER ACTION AFTER DISMISSAL ANYTIME WITHIN THE STATUTE-OF-LIMITATIONS PERIOD (FIRST DEPT).
LOSS OF RESTAURANT CUSTOMERS DUE TO COVID DOES NOT CONSTITUTE “DIRECT PHYSICAL LOSS OR DAMAGE” WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE BUSINESS-INTERRUPTION INSURANCE POLICY (FIRST DEPT).
DEFENSE DID NOT OPEN THE DOOR TO HEARSAY EVIDENCE OF A CODEFENDANT’S CONVICTION; CRITERIA FOR BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION TO HEARSAY RULE NOT MET; CONVICTIONS REVERSED.

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

DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE LACK OF NOTICE OF DANGEROUS CONDITION, SUMMARY... ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK FOR DE FACTO MERGER OF NONPROFIT CORPORATIONS FASHIONED...