You are here: / / THE FRANCHISOR, TOYOTA, DID NOT EXERCISE CONTROL OVER THE FRANCHISEE’S,...
, ,

THE FRANCHISOR, TOYOTA, DID NOT EXERCISE CONTROL OVER THE FRANCHISEE’S, PLAZA TOYOTA’S, DAILY OPERATIONS; THEREFORE TOYOTA COULD NOT BE HELD VICARIOUSLY LIABLE FOR PLAZA TOYOTA’S NEGLIGENCE; HERE A WHEEL FELL OFF PLAINTIFF’S CAR AFTER IT WAS SERVICED AT PLAZA TOYOTA (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the complaint against the franchisor, here Toyota, for the negligence of the franchisee car dealership, Plaza Toyota, should have been dismissed. After the plaintiff’s car was worked on at Plaza Toyota, a front wheel fell off:

Supreme Court erred in denying the Toyota defendants’ cross-motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross-claims insofar as asserted against them. “In determining whether a defendant, as a franchisor, may be held vicariously liable for the acts of its franchisee, the most significant factor is the degree of control that the franchisor maintains over the daily operations of the franchisee or, more specifically, the manner of performing the very work in the course of which the accident occurred” … .

Here, affidavits submitted by the Toyota defendants in support of their motion established, prima facie, that they lacked the requisite control over the manner in which Plaza Toyota serviced vehicles … . Caceres v Toyota Motor N. Am., Inc., 2023 NY Slip Op 02492, Second Dept 5-10-23

Practice Point: A franchisor can be held vicariously liable for the negligence of a franchisee only if the franchisor exercises control over the franchisee’s daily operations, not the case here.

 

You might also like
JURY SHOULD HAVE BEEN INSTRUCTED ON THE JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE AND LAWFUL TEMPORARY POSSESSION OF A WEAPON.
THE PETITIONER WAS ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON WHETHER HIS ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF PATERNITY WAS BASED ON A MISREPRESENTATION BY MOTHER AND WHETHER PETITIONER IS ESTOPPED FROM DENYING PATERNITY BASED ON THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILD (SECOND DEPT).
CITY DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT DID NOT CREATE THE ROADWAY DEPRESSION WHICH CAUSED PLAINTIFF’S BICYCLE ACCIDENT, SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED.
HERE DEFENDANT, WHO PLED GUILTY TO BURGLARY AS A SEXUALLY MOTIVATED FELONY, ATTEMPTED TO CHALLENGE HIS CERTIFICATION AS A SEX OFFENDER, PRONOUNCED AT SENTENCING, IN THE SORA RISK-LEVEL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING; THE SEX OFFENDER CERTIFICATION WAS DEEMED TO BE PART OF THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION WHICH CAN ONLY BE CHALLENGED ON DIRECT APPEAL (SECOND DEPT).
AN OPEN MANHOLE IS NOT AN ELEVATION-RELATED HAZARD COVERED BY LABOR LAW 240(1) (SECOND DEPT).
USURY IS AN AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE WHICH IS WAIVED IF NOT RAISED, SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE SEVERED USURIOUS PROVISIONS OF LOAN AGREEMENTS WHERE DEFENDANT DEFAULTED (SECOND DEPT).
HERE THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE CORPORATE VEIL SHOULD BE PIERCED SUCH THAT THE DEFENDANT HOSPITAL WOULD BE DEEMED VICARIOUSLY LIABLE FOR THE ALLEGED MALPRACTICE BY A CORPORATION OWNED BY A HOSPITAL EMPLOYEE AND WHOSE OFFICE WAS IN THE HOSPITAL (SECOND DEPT).
School Employee’s After-Hours Inappropriate Behavior Involving a Student Was Not Proximately Caused by Negligent Supervision/Retention of the Employee or Negligent Supervision of the Student on the Part of the School District

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

STRIKING A PEDESTRIAN IS NEGLIGENCE PER SE; FAILING TO SEE WHAT THERE IS TO... UGELL SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISQUALIFIED AS A CANDIDATE FOR TOWN SUPERVISOR;...