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
Reports by Attorneys Which Relate to an Insurer’s Decision to Accept or Reject a Claim Are Discoverable—Reports by Attorneys Made After the Claim Is Rejected Are Not Discoverable
AN AMENDED STIPULATED ORDER CONCERNING THE WIFE’S INTEREST IN THE HUSBAND’S LIFE INSURANCE AND 401k IN THE CONTEXT OF AN ONGOING DIVORCE ACTION, ISSUED AFTER THE HUSBAND’S DEATH, WAS WITHOUT EFFECT EVEN THOUGH THE ORGINAL STIPULATED ORDER WAS ISSUED ONE DAY BEFORE THE HUSBAND’S DEATH; THE DIVORCE ACTION ABATED UPON THE HUSBAND’S DEATH (FOURTH DEPT).
DEFENDANT’S COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE IN THAT COUNSEL’S EXPLANATION OF THE IMMIGRATION CONSEQUENCES OF THE GUILTY PLEA WAS WRONG; MATTER REMITTED FOR A HEARING ON WHETHER THERE IS A REASONABLE POSSIBILITIY DEFENDANT WOULD NOT HAVE PLED GUILTY HAD HE BEEN PROPERLY INFORMED (FOURTH DEPT).
FAILURE TO INSTRUCT THE JURY ON TWO REMOTE LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSES WAS HARMLESS ERROR, JURY WAS INSTRUCTED ON THE HIGHEST LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE AND CONVICTED DEFENDANT OF THE TOP COUNT OF THE INDICTMENT (FOURTH DEPT).
THE SENTENCING JUDGE DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO DIRECT THAT THE SENTENCE RUN CONSECUTIVELY WITH A SENTENCE WHICH HAD NOT YET BEEN IMPOSED BY A DIFFERENT COURT; THE APPROPRIATE APPELLATE REMEDY IS TO STRIKE THE DIRECTIVE (FOURTH DEPT).
THE STRICT LIABILITY STANDARD IN DOG-BITE CASES APPLIES HERE WHERE THE DOG WAS HARBORED BY THE DEFENDANT UNTIL THE ANIMAL SOCIETY COULD FIND SOMEONE TO ADOPT HIM; THE NEGLIGENCE STANDARD WHICH APPLIES TO A DOG-BITE IN A VETERINARIAN’S WAITING ROOM (WHERE THE VETERINARIAN IS THE DEFENDANT) IS NOT APPLICABLE (FOURTH DEPT).
THE AMBIGUITY IN THE HOME INSURANCE POLICY WAS NOT CLEARED UP BY EXTRINSIC EVIDENCE AND MUST BE RESOLVED AGAINST THE INSURER; THE INSURER SHOULD NOT HAVE DISCLAIMED COVERAGE FOR WATER DAMAGE CAUSED BY FROZEN PIPES (FOURTH DEPT).
ALTHOUGH EVIDENCE OF PRIOR THREATS AGAINST THE VICTIM MAY BE ADMISSIBLE UNDER MOLINEUX, SUCH EVIDENCE MUST BE IN ADMISSIBLE FORM, HERE THE HEARSAY EVIDENCE OF PRIOR THREATS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED FOR THE TRUTH OF THE MATTERS ASSERTED.

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

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...