Burke v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Burke v. City of New York

279 A.D.2d 381, 720 N.Y.S.2d 25, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 691

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

DecidedJanuary 23, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 279 A.D.2d 381 (Burke v. City of New York) 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

Burke v. City of New York, 279 A.D.2d 381, 720 N.Y.S.2d 25, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 691 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard Braun, J.), entered on or about November 4, 1999, which granted the motion of defendant Eugene Hurkin for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims as against him, and order, same court and Justice, entered August 2, 2000, which, to the extent appealable, denied plaintiffs motion for renewal, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendant Hurkin’s vehicle was stolen and thereafter became involved in a series of collisions resulting in plaintiffs injury. Although plaintiff maintains otherwise, it is plain that, at the time of its theft, there was an able-bodied adult within the Hurkin vehicle and, accordingly, the vehicle had not been left unattended within the meaning of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1210 (a) (see, Matter of Hartford Ins. Co. [Aquaviva], 179 AD2d 546). Plaintiffs alternative claim that defendant Hurkin may be held liable under a common-law negligence theory must also fail, since, at common law, the owner of a stolen vehicle is not liable for the negligence of its thief (American Tr. Ins. Co. v Baez, 278 AD2d 45). Renewal was properly denied since the purportedly new material offered in support of plaintiffs motion was available at the time of the original motion and, in any event, does not warrant a different disposition. Concur— Williams, J. P., Andrias, Lerner, Saxe and Buckley, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard Braun, J.), entered on or about November 4, 1999, which granted the motion of defendant Eugene Hurkin for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims as against him, and order, same court and Justice, entered August 2, 2000, which, to the extent appealable, denied plaintiffs motion for renewal, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendant Hurkin’s vehicle was stolen and thereafter became involved in a series of collisions resulting in plaintiffs injury. Although plaintiff maintains otherwise, it is plain that, at the time of its theft, there was an able-bodied adult within the Hurkin vehicle and, accordingly, the vehicle had not been left unattended within the meaning of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1210 (a) (see, Matter of Hartford Ins. Co. [Aquaviva], 179 AD2d 546). Plaintiffs alternative claim that defendant Hurkin may be held liable under a common-law negligence theory must also fail, since, at common law, the owner of a stolen vehicle is not liable for the negligence of its thief (American Tr. Ins. Co. v Baez, 278 AD2d 45). Renewal was properly denied since the purportedly new material offered in support of plaintiffs motion was available at the time of the original motion and, in any event, does not warrant a different disposition. Concur— Williams, J. P., Andrias, Lerner, Saxe and Buckley, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

279 A.D.2d 381, 720 N.Y.S.2d 25, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 691, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/burke-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack