Alexander v. Radix

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Alexander v. Radix

12 A.D.3d 544, 785 N.Y.S.2d 94, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14219

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedNovember 22, 2004

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 12 A.D.3d 544 (Alexander v. Radix) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Alexander v. Radix, 12 A.D.3d 544, 785 N.Y.S.2d 94, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14219 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the [545]*545defendant First Union Bank appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Jacobson, J.), entered July 30, 2003, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

On November 1, 2001, the infant plaintiff was struck by an automobile driven by the defendant Franklyn Radix and leased from Premier Ford, Inc. The lease was subsequently assigned to the defendant First Union Bank (hereinafter the bank). The plaintiffs alleged, inter alia, that the bank was vicariously liable for the infant plaintiffs injuries under Vehicle and Traffic Law § 388. The bank moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it, contending that it merely held a security interest in the vehicle and could not be deemed its owner.

The Supreme Court correctly determined that the bank is an owner of the vehicle under Vehicle and Traffic Law § 388 (see Litvak v Fabi, 8 AD3d 631, 632 [2004]; Ryan v Sobolevsky, 4 AD3d 222 [2004]; Sullivan v Spandau, 186 AD2d 641, 642-643 [1992]; cf. Aronov v Bruins Transp., 294 AD2d 523, 524 [2002]). Accordingly, the bank’s motion for summary judgment was properly denied. Krausman, J.P., Crane, Fisher and Lifson, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the [545]*545defendant First Union Bank appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Jacobson, J.), entered July 30, 2003, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

On November 1, 2001, the infant plaintiff was struck by an automobile driven by the defendant Franklyn Radix and leased from Premier Ford, Inc. The lease was subsequently assigned to the defendant First Union Bank (hereinafter the bank). The plaintiffs alleged, inter alia, that the bank was vicariously liable for the infant plaintiffs injuries under Vehicle and Traffic Law § 388. The bank moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it, contending that it merely held a security interest in the vehicle and could not be deemed its owner.

The Supreme Court correctly determined that the bank is an owner of the vehicle under Vehicle and Traffic Law § 388 (see Litvak v Fabi, 8 AD3d 631, 632 [2004]; Ryan v Sobolevsky, 4 AD3d 222 [2004]; Sullivan v Spandau, 186 AD2d 641, 642-643 [1992]; cf. Aronov v Bruins Transp., 294 AD2d 523, 524 [2002]). Accordingly, the bank’s motion for summary judgment was properly denied. Krausman, J.P., Crane, Fisher and Lifson, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

12 A.D.3d 544, 785 N.Y.S.2d 94, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14219, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/alexander-v-radix-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack