You are here: / / LESSOR OF VEHICLE INVOLVED IN AN ACCIDENT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT WAS NOT...

LESSOR OF VEHICLE INVOLVED IN AN ACCIDENT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT WAS NOT LIABLE BASED UPON ITS MAINTENANCE OF THE VEHICLE, THEREFORE THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE GRAVES AMENDMENT APPLIED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined defendant lessor of a vehicle involved in an accident (BCL) did not demonstrate it could not be liable under the Graves Amendment for negligent maintenance of the vehicle:

Under the Graves Amendment, the owner of a leased vehicle will not be held vicariously liable for the negligent operation of that vehicle where the owner proves that it is engaged in the business of renting or leasing motor vehicles and it was not otherwise negligent… . However, “[t]he Graves Amendment does not apply where, as here, a plaintiff seeks to hold a vehicle owner liable for the alleged failure to maintain a rented vehicle”… . Accordingly, in order to establish its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law in this action, BCL was required to prove not only that it is in the business of leasing vehicles, but also, that it did not negligently maintain the BCL vehicle … .

BCL failed to sustain its prima facie burden, since the affidavit of its litigation specialist failed to address the plaintiff's negligent maintenance theory of liability, and the copy of the lease documents it submitted stated that Wesner was obligated to have the subject vehicle serviced “by a BCL partner dealer” according to a service schedule established by BCL. Casine v Wesner, 2018 NY Slip Op 06714, Second Dept 10-10-18

NEGLIGENCE (LESSOR OF VEHICLE INVOLVED IN AN ACCIDENT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT WAS NOT LIABLE BASED UPON ITS MAINTENANCE OF THE VEHICLE, THEREFORE THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE GRAVES AMENDMENT APPLIED (SECOND DEPT))/TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS (LESSOR OF VEHICLE INVOLVED IN AN ACCIDENT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT WAS NOT LIABLE BASED UPON ITS MAINTENANCE OF THE VEHICLE, THEREFORE THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE GRAVES AMENDMENT APPLIED (SECOND DEPT))/GRAVES AMENDMENT (LESSOR OF VEHICLE INVOLVED IN AN ACCIDENT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT WAS NOT LIABLE BASED UPON ITS MAINTENANCE OF THE VEHICLE, THEREFORE THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE GRAVES AMENDMENT APPLIED (SECOND DEPT))

You might also like
THE COMPLAINT IN THIS LABOR LAW 200 ACTION ALLEGED INJURY CAUSED BY A DANGEROUS CONDITION AT THE WORK SITE; THE DEFENDANTS IGNORED THAT THEORY IN THEIR MOTION FOR A SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND FOCUSED ON AN INAPPLICABLE THEORY (THE MEANS AND MANNER OF WORK); THE MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
ONE DEFENDANT BREACHED A CONTRACT; THE OTHER DEFENDANT TORTIOUSLY INTERFERED WITH PLAINTIFF’S PROSPECTIVE BUSINESS RELATIONS; THE JURY AWARDED SEPARATE DAMAGE-AMOUNTS FOR EACH DEFENDANT; SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE HELD BOTH DEFENDANTS JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY LIABLE FOR THE COMBINED AMOUNT OF DAMAGES (SECOND DEPT). ​
WAIVER OF A-1 FELONY INDICTMENT INVALID, DESPITE GUILTY PLEA, WAIVER OF APPEAL AND FAILURE TO PRESERVE THE ERROR.
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT VIOLATED VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW 1141 BY MAKING A LEFT TURN IN FRONT OF PLAINTIFF’S VEHICLE, DEFENDANT AVERRED PLAINTIFF WAS DRIVING TOO FAST, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
THE DEPRAVED-INDIFFERENCE ELEMENT OF THE CHARGED OFFENSES WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE; ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT’S ATTEMPTS TO CARE FOR BURNS ON THE CHILD’S LEGS WERE GROSSLY INADEQUATE, THOSE MEASURES DID NOT SUPPORT A FINDING DEFENDANT DID NOT CARE AT ALL ABOUT THE CONDITION OF THE CHILD (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF WAS WORKING ON DEFENDANT’S PRIVATE RESIDENCE WHEN INJURED, THE HOMEOWNER’S EXEMPTION TO LABOR LAW 241(6) LIABILITY MAY NOT APPLY BECAUSE PLAINTIFF WAS EMPLOYED AS A CARPENTER BY DEFENDANT AND DEFENDANT MAY HAVE BEEN DIRECTING AND SUPERVISING THE WORK; SIMILARLY, DEFENDANT WAS NOT ENTITLED TO DISMISSAL OF THE LABOR LAW 200 AND COMMON LAW NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT SCHOOL DISTRICT DID NOT MAKE OUT A PRIMA FACIE CASE DEMONSTRATING IT LACKED CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE TEACHER’S ALLEGED PROPENSITY TO SEXUALLY ABUSE CHILDREN; THEREFORE ITS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS CHILD VICTIMS ACT CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
THE DISMISSAL OF THE COMPLAINT DID NOT NULLIFY THE COUNTERCLAIMS (SECOND DEPT).

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

IT WAS IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILD TO RESTRICT CONTACT WITH THE INCARCERATED...