Brown v. Agency Rent-a-Car

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Brown v. Agency Rent-a-Car

234 A.D.2d 82, 650 N.Y.S.2d 220, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12395

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

DecidedDecember 10, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 234 A.D.2d 82 (Brown v. Agency Rent-a-Car) 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

Brown v. Agency Rent-a-Car, 234 A.D.2d 82, 650 N.Y.S.2d 220, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12395 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Bertram Katz, J.), entered on or about April 9, 1996, which denied defendant Agency Rent-A-Car’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

We agree with the motion court that enforcement of the clause in the car rental agreement purporting to prohibit use of the rental car in New York State is precluded on public policy grounds as being "unreasonable and unrealistic” (Koreman v Chrysler Fin. Corp., 199 AD2d 181). Defendant lessor knew or should have known of the great likelihood that a car rented in Massachusetts would be driven to neighboring New York, and thus defendant cannot avoid its responsibilities under Vehicle and Traffic Law § 388. Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Ross, Williams, Mazzarelli and Andrias, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Bertram Katz, J.), entered on or about April 9, 1996, which denied defendant Agency Rent-A-Car’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

We agree with the motion court that enforcement of the clause in the car rental agreement purporting to prohibit use of the rental car in New York State is precluded on public policy grounds as being "unreasonable and unrealistic” (Koreman v Chrysler Fin. Corp., 199 AD2d 181). Defendant lessor knew or should have known of the great likelihood that a car rented in Massachusetts would be driven to neighboring New York, and thus defendant cannot avoid its responsibilities under Vehicle and Traffic Law § 388. Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Ross, Williams, Mazzarelli and Andrias, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

234 A.D.2d 82, 650 N.Y.S.2d 220, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12395, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brown-v-agency-rent-a-car-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack