Kenner v. Avis Rent A Car System, Inc.

254 A.D.2d 704, 678 N.Y.S.2d 213, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10368
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedOctober 2, 1998
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 254 A.D.2d 704 (Kenner v. Avis Rent A Car System, Inc.) 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
Kenner v. Avis Rent A Car System, Inc., 254 A.D.2d 704, 678 N.Y.S.2d 213, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10368 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Opinion

Order unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly denied the motion of Avis Rent A Car System, Inc. (defendant), for partial summary judgment, which sought dismissal of all claims in excess of $10,000 on the ground that defendant is entitled to contractual indemnification from plaintiffs with respect to such claims. Defendant contends that Morris v Snappy Car Rental (84 NY2d 21) is directly on point and that any claim by Harrison N. Kenner, Sr. (plaintiff), that he was unaware of the terms and conditions of the car rental agreement that he signed is wholly invalid. We disagree because the facts in this case are distinguishable from those in Morris. There, the renter signed on the front side of the agreement and the indemnification provision was on the reverse side thereof. In this case, the indemnification provision was contained in a separate jacket or folder that was admittedly not provided to plaintiff until after he signed the rental agreement. The doctrine of incorporation by reference requires that the paper to be incorporated into the written instrument by reference must be so described in the instrument that the paper may be identified “beyond all reasonable doubt” (Matter of Board of Commrs., 52 NY 131, 134). There is a triable issue of fact whether the oblique reference in the rental agreement to an otherwise unidentified “rental document jacket” meets that exacting standard (cf., Shark Information Seros. Corp. v [705]*705Crum & Forster Commercial Ins., 222 AD2d 251, 252) and thus whether the rental document signed by plaintiff gave him sufficient notice of the indemnification provisions included in the contents of the separate jacket (see, Chiacchia v National Westminster Bank, 124 AD2d 626, 628). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Flaherty, J. — Summary Judgment.) Present — Green, J. P., Lawton, Hayes, Pigott, Jr., and Callahan, JJ.

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

Related

Great Lakes Ins v. Gray Group Invst
76 F.4th 341 (Fifth Circuit, 2023)
Bacon v. Avis Budget Grp., Inc.
357 F. Supp. 3d 401 (D. New Jersey, 2018)
Valley Stream Foreign Cars, Inc. v. American Honda Motor Co.
209 F. Supp. 3d 547 (E.D. New York, 2016)
Maines Paper & Food Service, Inc. v. Keystone Associates, Architects, Engineers, and Surveyors, LLC
134 A.D.3d 1340 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
Amica Mutual Insurance v. Kingston Oil Supply Corp.
134 A.D.3d 750 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
United States ex rel. Keller Painting Corp. v. Torcon, Inc.
64 F. Supp. 3d 371 (E.D. New York, 2014)
Ward v. TheLadders.com, Inc.
3 F. Supp. 3d 151 (S.D. New York, 2014)
Spiegler v. Gerken Building Corp.
35 A.D.3d 715 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
254 A.D.2d 704, 678 N.Y.S.2d 213, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10368, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kenner-v-avis-rent-a-car-system-inc-nyappdiv-1998.