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
BECAUSE PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT AFFIDAVIT IN RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION DID NOT ADDRESS SEVERAL OF THE MALPRACTICE CLAIMS RAISED IN THE PLEADINGS, THOSE CLAIMS WERE DEEMED ABANDONED (FOURTH DEPT).
Questions of Fact About Whether Covenants Restricting Use of Land Were Violated
THE STATE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE DEFENDANT WAS UNABLE TO CONTROL SEXUAL URGES, AS OPPOSED HAVING DIFFICULTY CONTROLLING SEXUAL URGES; THEREFORE CONFINEMENT IS NOT AN APPROPRIATE REMEDY (FOURTH DEPT).
SNOW REMOVAL CONTRACTOR’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, CONTRACTOR DID NOT LAUNCH AN INSTRUMENT OF HARM.
Strict Products Liability Cause of Action Against Forklift Manufacturer Properly Dismissed Due to Owner’s Disabling Safety Switch/Question of Fact Whether Plaintiff Was a Special Employee of the Owner of the Forklift (Which Would Limit Plaintiff’s Recovery to Workers’ Compensation)
PLAINTIFF STEPPED OFF A CURB AND FELL INTO A FOUR-FOOT DEEP STORM DRAIN; THE GRATE WHICH USUALLY COVERED THE DRAIN WAS FOUND AT THE BOTTOM; THE DEFENDANT MUNICIPALITY DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT DID NOT HAVE CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE CONDITION; DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).
Defendant’s Wearing a Stun Belt During Trial Without Knowledge of Judge Did Not Constitute a “Mode of Proceedings” Error
COLLEGE’S DETERMINATION WAS NOT ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS; AGENCY’S RATIONAL RULING MUST BE UPHELD EVEN IF THE REVIEWING COURT WOULD HAVE DECIDED DIFFERENTLY.

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...