Brown v. McKenzie

2019 NY Slip Op 1364
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedFebruary 26, 2019
Docket8518 303309/14
StatusPublished

This text of 2019 NY Slip Op 1364 (Brown v. McKenzie) 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. McKenzie, 2019 NY Slip Op 1364 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2019).

Opinion

Brown v McKenzie (2019 NY Slip Op 01364)
Brown v McKenzie
2019 NY Slip Op 01364
Decided on February 26, 2019
Appellate Division, First Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.


Decided on February 26, 2019
Renwick, J.P., Richter, Tom, Kahn, Moulton, JJ.

8518 303309/14

[*1]Tonjalaya Brown, Plaintiff,

v

Derrick McKenzie, Defendant-Respondent, Value Store It, LLC, Defendant-Appellant.


Ahmuty, Demers & McManus, Albertson (Glenn A. Kaminska of counsel), for appellant.

Cerussi & Spring, P.C., White Plains (Christopher B. Roberta of counsel), for respondent.



Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Kenneth L. Thompson, Jr., J.), entered on or about September 27, 2017, which, in this action for personal injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident, denied the motion of defendant Value Store It, LLC (Value) for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims as against it, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Value failed to establish entitlement to judgment as a matter of law under the Graves Amendment (49 USC § 30106[a][1]; Cassidy v DCFS Trust, 89 AD3d 591 [1st Dept 2011]). The evidence submitted by Value was insufficient to show that it was engaged in the trade or business of renting or leasing motor vehicles. Rather, the evidence showed that Value was in the business of renting storage space and that the certificate of title for the subject vehicle designates its use as "private."

We have considered Value's remaining contentions and find them unavailing.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER

OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: FEBRUARY 26, 2019

CLERK



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

Related

Cassidy v. DCFS Trust
89 A.D.3d 591 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2019 NY Slip Op 1364, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brown-v-mckenzie-nyappdiv-2019.