You are here: / / ALTHOUGH THE DRIVER’S MOTHER HAD PURCHASED AND INSURED THE CAR AT...
,

ALTHOUGH THE DRIVER’S MOTHER HAD PURCHASED AND INSURED THE CAR AT THE TIME OF THE ACCIDENT, THE SELLER’S REGISTRATION PLATES WERE STILL ON THE CAR, THE SELLER WAS ESTOPPED FROM DENYING OWNERSHIP (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined defendant Buffalo Auto Rental (BAR) was estopped from denying ownership of the vehicle in which plaintiff, a passenger, was injured. Although the driver’s (Mayfield’s) mother (Julie Robertson) had purchased the car and had insured it, it was still had BAR’s registration plates on it at the time of the accident. The court noted that BAR’s summary judgment motion papers included Mayfield’s deposition testimony in which Mayfield claimed he was driving fast to escape another driver who was acting aggressively. The testimony raised a question of fact about the availability of the emergency defense, precluding summary judgment on the issue of Mayfield’s negligence without the need to consider the opposing papers:

… [T]he court properly determined that BAR was estopped from denying ownership of the vehicle as a matter of law. Even assuming, arguendo, that it was the intention of BAR and Robertson that Robertson was to be the legalowner of the vehicle after she executed the bill of sale and took physical possession of the vehicle … , we conclude that the issue of legal ownership is not determinative. “Whether or not [BAR] was still the owner of the motor vehicle at the time of the accident need not be determined; [BAR], having left [its] registration plates on the motor vehicle, is estopped to deny [its] ownership” as against plaintiff … . Contrary to BAR’s contention, the fact that Robertson had obtained insurance for the vehicle does not mandate a different result inasmuch as the public policy reasons for the estoppel doctrine are not limited to issues of insurance coverage … . White v Mayfield, 2018 NY Slip Op 03270, Fourth Dept 5-4-18

​NEGLIGENCE (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, ALTHOUGH THE DRIVER’S MOTHER HAD PURCHASED AND INSURED THE CAR AT THE TIME OF THE ACCIDENT, THE SELLER’S REGISTRATION PLATES WERE STILL ON THE CAR, THE SELLER WAS ESTOPPED FROM DENYING OWNERSHIP (FOURTH DEPT))/TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS  (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, ALTHOUGH THE DRIVER’S MOTHER HAD PURCHASED AND INSURED THE CAR AT THE TIME OF THE ACCIDENT, THE SELLER’S REGISTRATION PLATES WERE STILL ON THE CAR, THE SELLER WAS ESTOPPED FROM DENYING OWNERSHIP (FOURTH DEPT)/VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, REGISTRATION PLATES, ALTHOUGH THE DRIVER’S MOTHER HAD PURCHASED AND INSURED THE CAR AT THE TIME OF THE ACCIDENT, THE SELLER’S REGISTRATION PLATES WERE STILL ON THE CAR, THE SELLER WAS ESTOPPED FROM DENYING OWNERSHIP (FOURTH DEPT))/REGISTRATION PLATES (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, ALTHOUGH THE DRIVER’S MOTHER HAD PURCHASED AND INSURED THE CAR AT THE TIME OF THE ACCIDENT, THE SELLER’S REGISTRATION PLATES WERE STILL ON THE CAR, THE SELLER WAS ESTOPPED FROM DENYING OWNERSHIP (FOURTH DEPT))/VEHICLES (OWNERSHIP, TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, ALTHOUGH THE DRIVER’S MOTHER HAD PURCHASED AND INSURED THE CAR AT THE TIME OF THE ACCIDENT, THE SELLER’S REGISTRATION PLATES WERE STILL ON THE CAR, THE SELLER WAS ESTOPPED FROM DENYING OWNERSHIP (FOURTH DEPT))

You might also like
CERTAIN LABOR LAW 200, COMMON LAW NEGLIGENCE, AND LABOR LAW 241(6) CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED; QUESTION OF FACT RE: WHETHER PLAINTIFF WAS THE SOLE CAUSE OF THE ACCIDENT IN THIS LADDER-FALL CASE; THE PROJECT COORDINATOR MET SEVERAL DEFINITIONS OF ‘OWNER’ WITHIN THE MEANING OF LABOR LAW 240(1), INCLUDING AS THE HOLDER OF AN EQUITABLE INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY (FOURTH DEPT).
DEFENDANT MAY HAVE PLED GUILTY AND ACCEPTED A 16-YEAR SENTENCE IN MONORE COUNTY BECAUSE HE WAS ALREADY SENTENCED TO 14 – 24 YEARS FOR ANOTHER OFFENSE IN ONTARIO COUNTY; ON APPEAL THE ONTARIO COUNTY SENTENCE WAS REDUCED TO FOUR YEARS; MONROE COUNTY GUILTY PLEA VACATED (FOURTH DEPT).
In SORA Context, Mild Mental Retardation Is Not a “Mental Disability”
AT THE SUPPRESSION HEARING THE PEOPLE DEMONSTRATED THE TRAFFIC STOP OF DEFENDANT’S VEHICLE WAS BASED ON A POLICE OFFICER’S COMPUTER DMV CHECK WHICH SHOWED DEFENDANT’S INSURANCE HAD LAPSED; IN SUPPORT OF THE SUPPRESSION MOTION THE DEFENDANT SUBMITTED VERIFICATION THAT THE INSURANCE HAD NOT LAPSED; AT THAT POINT THE PRESUMPTION OF RELIABILITY DISAPPEARED AND THE PEOPLE WERE REQUIRED TO SHOW THE RELIABILITY OF THE DMV CHECK, WHICH THEY FAILED TO DO (FOURTH DEPT).
DEFENDANT’S STATEMENT DURING THE PLEA ALLOCUTION RAISED A VIABLE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE WHICH REQUIRED FURTHER INQUIRY BY THE JUDGE, ERROR IS A RARE EXCEPTION TO THE PRESERVATION REQUIREMENT (FOURTH DEPT).
A Shooting Victim’s Negligence and Public Nuisance Actions Against the Manufacturer, Distributor and Resellers of Firearms Is Allowed to Go Forward.
Parole Violation Did Not Preclude Application for Resentencing Under the Drug Law Reform Act
Termination of Parental Rights Affirmed Because Diligent Efforts to Reunite Parent and Child Were Made (In Spite of Misdiagnosis of Mother’s and Child’s Psychological Conditions)

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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

RECKLESS DISREGARD STANDARD APPLIED TO DRIVER OF TOWN SNOWPLOW AND THE DRIVER... WILL THAT CANNOT BE FOUND IS PRESUMED REVOKED, HERE PETITIONER DID NOT REBUT...