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
THE PETITIONERS DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO CHALLENGE THE VILLAGE’S SEQRA NEGATIVE DECLARATION WHICH ALLOWED THE CONSTRUCTION OF 98 APARTMENTS, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE NOTICE OF FORECLOSURE WAS MAILED IN ACCORDANCE WITH RPAPL 1304; THE BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULDN’T HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
MOTHER CANNOT RECOVER DAMAGES FOR EMOTIONAL DISTRESS FOR INJURY IN UTERO WHERE, AS HERE, THE CHILD WAS BORN ALIVE (SECOND DEPT).
MOTHER’S PETITION SEEKING FINDINGS TO ALLOW HER CHILD TO APPLY FOR SPECIAL IMMIGRANT JUVENILE STATUES SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, MOTHER WAS NOT REQUIRED TO BE FINGERPRINTED OR TO SUBMIT CERTAIN DOCUMENTATION, JUDGE’S COMMENTS ABOUT THE CHILD’S SPEAKING SPANISH REQUIRED TRANSFER TO A DIFFERENT JUDGE (SECOND DEPT).
CEMETERY’S APPLICATION FOR A USE VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT A CREMATORY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED BY THE ZONING BOARD, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).
JUDGE’S IMPROPER COMMENTS CONCERNING PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT WARRANTED A NEW TRIAL ON DAMAGES.
GENERALLY A HOMEOWNER WHO DOES NOT DIRECT THE WORK ON THE HOME CANNOT BE HELD LIABLE FOR A LADDER-FALL PURSUANT TO LABOR LAW 240(1); BUT THE HOMEOWNER’S EXEMPTION DOES NOT APPLY WHEN THE WORK IS RELATED TO A COMMERCIAL PURPOSE; HERE THERE WERE QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER THE PROPERTY WAS TO BE USED FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSES (SECOND DEPT).
Fact that Driver’s Negligence Was Deemed “Sole Proximate Cause” of Passenger’s Injury Did Not Warrant the Dismissal of Claims Against the Other Driver Involved in the Collision

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;...