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
INSTEAD OF DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT FOR FAILURE TO NAME A NECESSARY PARTY SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE ORDERED THE PARTY SUMMONED (SECOND DEPT).
DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE ADDRESS FOR DEFENDANT CORPORATION ON FILE WITH THE SECRETARY OF STATE WAS INCORRECT, DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO VACATE THE DEFAULT JUDGMENT ON THE GROUND DEFENDANT WAS NOT MADE AWARE OF THE ACTION IN TIME TO DEFEND (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE COURT HAD, IN 2018, GRANTED MOTHER’S APPLICATION TO RELOCATE WITH THE CHILD TO CONNECTICUT, THE COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DECIDED IT DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION TO DETERMINE FATHER’S PETITION TO MODIFY THE CUSTODY ORDER WITHOUT HOLDING A HEARING ABOUT THE CHILD’S CONNECTIONS TO NEW YORK (SECOND DEPT).
STATEMENT IN SUMMONS WITH NOTICE ABSOLUTELY PRIVILEGED.
Application for Area Variances Properly Denied—Court’s Review Criteria Explained—General City Law and Town Law Criteria for Area Variance Explained
Questions of Fact Raised About Fairness of Facially Valid Prenuptial Agreement
CONSTRUCTION MANAGER DID NOT EXERCISE SUFFICIENT CONTROL TO BE LIABLE UNDER LABOR LAW 240(1) (SECOND DEPT).
IN THIS STATUTORY RAPE CASE WHERE THE VICTIM WAS FIVE YEARS YOUNGER THAN DEFENDANT, DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO A DOWNWARD DEPARTURE FROM LEVEL TWO TO LEVEL ONE (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

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;...