You are here: / / DEFENDANT CAR RENTAL COMPANY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS...

DEFENDANT CAR RENTAL COMPANY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS NEGLIGENT ENTRUSTMENT CASE WAS PROPERLY DENIED; QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER COMPANY KNEW AN UNLICENSED DRIVER WOULD USE THE CAR.

The Fourth Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined defendant’s motion for summary judgment in this negligent entrustment case was properly denied. Plaintiff alleged the defendant car rental company (BAR) knew or should have known that an unlicensed driver (Kirksey) would drive the car (which was rented to defendant Jones). The dissent argued that knowledge an unlicensed driver would use the car does not amount to knowledge the car would be driven by an incompetent driver:

The fact that Kirksey did not possess a driver’s license is a factor to consider in determining whether BAR knew that Kirksey was incompetent to operate the vehicle … . While we agree with the dissent that “the absence or possession of a driver’s license is not relevant to the issue of negligence” in the operation of a motor vehicle … , this is a negligent entrustment cause of action, where the issue does not concern the manner in which the accident occurred. Rather, the issue is whether BAR should have entrusted the vehicle to Kirksey in the first instance. Graham v Jones, 2017 NY Slip Op 00835, 4th Dept 2-3-17

NEGLIGENCE (NEGLIGENT ENTRUSTMENT, DEFENDANT CAR RENTAL COMPANY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS NEGLIGENT ENTRUSTMENT CASE WAS PROPERLY DENIED; QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER COMPANY KNEW AN UNLICENSED DRIVER WOULD USE THE CAR)/NEGLIGENT ENTRUSTMENT (NEGLIGENT ENTRUSTMENT, DEFENDANT CAR RENTAL COMPANY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS NEGLIGENT ENTRUSTMENT CASE WAS PROPERLY DENIED; QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER COMPANY KNEW AN UNLICENSED DRIVER WOULD USE THE CAR)/TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS (NEGLIGENT ENTRUSTMENT, DEFENDANT CAR RENTAL COMPANY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS NEGLIGENT ENTRUSTMENT CASE WAS PROPERLY DENIED; QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER COMPANY KNEW AN UNLICENSED DRIVER WOULD USE THE CAR)

You might also like
MERELY LOSING ONE’S BALANCE AND FALLING FROM A LADDER DOES NOT GIVE RISE TO LIABILITY UNDER LABOR LAW 240 (1) (FOURTH DEPT).
IN THIS PARTITION ACTION, THERE WAS NO PENDING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND THERE WAS NO INDICATION THE PARTIES HAD LAID THEIR PROOF BARE SUCH THAT THE COURT COULD CONSIDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT; SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN AWARDED (FOURTH DEPT). ​
SPECTATOR’S CLAIM JURORS REFERRED TO DEFENDANT AS A ‘SCUMBAG’ WAS NOT CREDIBLE, TRIAL JUDGE PROPERLY DECIDED A JUROR-BIAS (BUFORD) HEARING WAS NOT REQUIRED (FOURTH DEPT).
GENERAL OBLIGATIONS LAW 17-105, NOT 17-101, APPLIES TO THE REVIVAL OF AN EXPIRED STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR A MORTGAGE FORECLOSURE; THE RELEVANT DOCUMENTS HERE DID NOT MEET THE CRITERIA OF SECTION 17-105; FORECLOSURE WAS THEREFORE TIME-BARRED (FOURTH DEPT).
THE ARBITRATOR’S DECISION TO OVERLOOK AN INSTANCE OF TARDINESS (ONE MINUTE LATE DUE TO A DISABLED TRAIN BLOCKING TRAFFIC) WHICH OTHERWISE WOULD REQUIRE THE GRIEVANT’S TERMINATION WAS NOT IRRATIONAL AND DID NOT EXCEED THE ARBITRATOR’S ENUMERATED POWERS (FOURTH DEPT).
Question of Fact Raised About Owner’s Knowledge of Presence of Lead Paint
THE ARGUMENT THAT THE PROBATION OFFICER’S SEARCH OF DEFENDANT’S RESIDENCE WAS UNLAWFUL AND UNREASONABLE BECAUSE IT WAS BASED SOLELY ON AN UNCORROBORATED ANONYMOUS TIP WAS NOT PRESERVED FOR APPEAL, THE DISSENT DISAGREED; DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO PRESERVE THE ISSUE (FOURTH DEPT).
No Appeal Lies from an Order Entered Upon a Default

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

LEAVE TO FILE LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM PROPERLY GRANTED, NOTICE FILED PROMPTLY AFTER... SNOW REMOVAL CONTRACTOR DID NOT OWE A DUTY TO PLAINTIFF IN THIS SLIP AND FALL...