Fischer v. Lunt

162 A.D.2d 1016, 557 N.Y.S.2d 220, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9788
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJune 22, 1990
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 162 A.D.2d 1016 (Fischer v. Lunt) 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
Fischer v. Lunt, 162 A.D.2d 1016, 557 N.Y.S.2d 220, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9788 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Opinion

Order and judgment unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: On October 22, 1987, plaintiff sustained personal injuries while a passenger in a vehicle owned and operated by Thomas Edwards. Plaintiff alleges that Edwards’ vehicle was forced off the road and into a bridge abutment by [1017]*1017a vehicle owned and operated by Bradley Lunt, the 20-year-old son of defendant Thomas Lunt. The vehicle was registered in Bradley Lunt’s name, he was the named insured under an automobile insurance policy, he held a valid New York State operator’s license and only he possessed the keys to the vehicle. Plaintiff asserts a cause of action against Thomas Lunt for negligent entrustment of a dangerous instrument to his son (see, Nolechek v Gesuale, 46 NY2d 332, 336). Supreme Court granted Thomas Lunt’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and cross claims asserted against him. We affirm. Bradley Lunt, on the date of the accident, was no longer an infant; he had attained his majority (see, CPLR 105 [j]). Thomas Lunt cannot be liable to third parties under a theory of negligent entrustment of a dangerous instrumentality in the hands of his adult son (see, Nolechek v Gesuale, supra, at 338). Moreover, the record establishes that Bradley Lunt’s use of the vehicle was not subject to his parent’s control (see, Camillone v Popham, 157 AD2d 816; Borregine v Klang, 144 AD2d 415; Larsen v Heitmann, 133 AD2d 533, Iv denied 70 NY2d 616). (Appeal from order and judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Fudeman, J.—summary judgment.) Present—Dillon, P. J., Boomer, Pine, Davis and Lowery, JJ.

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

Related

Kouril v. SLS Residential, Inc.
87 A.D.3d 560 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
Fox v. Marshall
88 A.D.3d 131 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
Troiano v. DeMarco
50 A.D.3d 1020 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
Cook v. Polak
46 A.D.3d 1442 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
DE BLANC EX REL. ESTATES OF v. Jensen
59 S.W.3d 373 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2001)
Broadwater v. Dorsey
688 A.2d 436 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1997)
Miltz v. Ohel, Inc.
165 Misc. 2d 167 (New York Supreme Court, 1995)
Guay v. Winner
189 A.D.2d 1081 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1993)
Hartsock v. Hartsock
189 A.D.2d 993 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1993)
Corrigan v. DiGuardia
166 A.D.2d 408 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1990)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
162 A.D.2d 1016, 557 N.Y.S.2d 220, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9788, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fischer-v-lunt-nyappdiv-1990.