You are here: / / DEFENDANT IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO AMEND...
,

DEFENDANT IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO AMEND HIS ANSWER TO ASSERT A GRAVES AMENDMENT AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (AVAILABLE TO THE LESSOR OF A VEHICLE); PLAINTIFF WAS NOT PREJUDICED BY THE LATENESS OF THE MOTION (FIRST DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendant’s (Lubman;s) motion to amend his answer in this traffic accident case should have been granted. The lateness of the motion to amend did not cause sufficient prejudice to plaintiff to justify denial:

… [T]he court … improperly determined that the Graves Amendment is inapplicable here. Although Lubman did not clearly establish that he was a commercial lessor of motor vehicles … , he proffered sufficient evidence to create a question of fact as to the Graves Amendment’s applicability. He submitted evidence that he owned between four and seven cars that he rented fifty-nine times over a nine-month period through Turo, a peer-to-peer car sharing service. This volume of rental activity, which involved several vehicles, demonstrated more than a casual or occasional endeavor. The fact that Lubman operated under his own name rather than a corporate entity was not determinative. The Graves Amendment defines “owner” as “a person,” which it defines, in part, as “any individual” as well as a “corporation, company . . . or any other entity” … . Thus, by its own terms, the Graves Amendment is intended to cover both individuals and corporate entities.

Supreme Court should have granted Lubman’s motion for leave to amend his answer to assert a Graves Amendment affirmative defense. Lubman demonstrated that his proposed amended answer was not palpably insufficient or clearly devoid of merit …  Although plaintiff … claimed that they would be prejudiced by the amendment because Lubman waited ten months after his deposition before seeking leave to amend his answer, such delay was not significant prejudice that hindered their case preparation or prevented them from acting in support of their position … , as the note of issue had not yet been filed and Lubman could have been deposed further on the limited issue of the Graves Amendment affirmative defense. Ventura v Lubman, 2023 NY Slip Op 03444, First Dept 6-27-23

Practice Point: Although the motion to amend the answer was made 10 months after depositions, the note of issue had not been filed and defendant could be deposed further. The delay therefore did not prejudice plaintiff sufficiently to warrant denial of the motion.

Practice Point: The Graves Amendment limits the liability of a lessor of a vehicle involved in an accident to negligent maintenance or repair. The affirmative defense is available to individuals as well as business entities.

 

You might also like
QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER THE ASSAILANT WAS AN INTRUDER AND WHETHER THE LANDLORD HAD NOTICE OF THE DEFECTIVE DOOR LOCK IN THIS THIRD-PARTY ASSAULT CASE; LANDLORD’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
EMAILS DID NOT EXPLICITLY WAIVE THE INITIAL AGREEMENT THAT THE PARTIES WOULD NOT BE BOUND UNTIL A FORMAL AGREEMENT WAS EXECUTED, NO CONTRACT WAS CREATED (FIRST DEPT).
PROOF THAT DEFENDANT WAS SERVED WITH THE RPAPL 1304 NOTICE IN THIS FORECLOSURE PROCEEDING WAS NOT SUFFICIENT, THE BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
Motion to Renew Was Not Based Upon a Change in the Applicable Law—Motion Court Had Simply Ignored the Controlling Precedent—Therefore the Motion Was Actually a Motion to Reargue, the Denial of Which Is Not Appealable
MASSIVE 750-FOOT TOWER CRANE DESTROYED BY HURRICANE SANDY NOT COVERED UNDER “TEMPORARY WORKS” CLAUSE IN INSURANCE POLICY.
PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT STATED CAUSES OF ACTION FOR FAILURE TO PAY WAGES UNDER THE “NO WAGE THEFT LOOPHOLE ACT” AND RETALIATION (FIRST DEPT).
IN THIS CHILD VICTIMS ACT CASE ALLEGING SEXUAL ABUSE BY A TEACHER, PLAINTIFF-STUDENT’S DEMAND FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES AGAINST THE SCHOOL PROPERLY SURVIVED THE MOTION TO DISMISS, BUT THE DEMAND FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES AGAINST THE DIOCESE DID NOT; CRITERIA EXPLAINED (FIRST DEPT). ​
NO EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY IN EMAIL ACCOUNT OWNED BY ATTORNEY’S EMPLOYER, THEREFORE ATTORNEY CLIENT AND SPOUSAL PRIVILEGES DID NOT APPLY, ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT PROTECTION MAY APPLY.

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

NO APPEAL LIES FROM AN ORDER ISSUED ON DEFAULT, A MOTION TO VACATE IS THE ONLY... THE BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT HAD STANDING TO FORECLOSE; THERE WAS INSUFFICIENT...