Davido v. Salazar

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Davido v. Salazar

89 A.D.3d 463, 931 N.Y.2d 876

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided November 3, 2011·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Juda failed to establish its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on its defense that the Graves Amendment applied to shield it from vicarious liability for plaintiffs injuries (see 49 USC § 30106; Graham v Dunkley, 50 AD3d 55, 57-58 [2008], appeal dismissed 10 NY3d 835 [2008]). The record presents triable issues of fact with respect to whether Juda was a bona fide commercial lessor of motor vehicles and whether it had entered into a valid lease agreement with JCV which was Salazar’s employer. Concur — Mazzarelli, J.E, Saxe, Acosta, DeGrasse and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

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

Juda failed to establish its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on its defense that the Graves Amendment applied to shield it from vicarious liability for plaintiffs injuries (see 49 USC § 30106; Graham v Dunkley, 50 AD3d 55, 57-58 [2008], appeal dismissed 10 NY3d 835 [2008]). The record presents triable issues of fact with respect to whether Juda was a bona fide commercial lessor of motor vehicles and whether it had entered into a valid lease agreement with JCV which was Salazar’s employer. Concur — Mazzarelli, J.E, Saxe, Acosta, DeGrasse and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

Davido v. Salazar, 89 A.D.3d 463, 931 N.Y.2d 876 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

89 A.D.3d 463 (Davido v. Salazar) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related