Monette v. Trummer

New York Court of Appeals

Monette v. Trummer

999 N.E.2d 174, 22 N.Y.3d 944

New York Court of Appeals·Decided October 22, 2013·Published·Cited by 9 cases

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

On these facts, we agree with the Appellate Division majority that defendant dealer satisfied its initial burden of proving that it was not an owner of the vehicle in question under Vehicle and Traffic Law § 128. Plaintiffs failed to raise a genuine issue of fact to support a contrary finding.

Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott, Rivera and Abdus-Salaam concur.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

On these facts, we agree with the Appellate Division majority that defendant dealer satisfied its initial burden of proving that it was not an owner of the vehicle in question under Vehicle and Traffic Law § 128. Plaintiffs failed to raise a genuine issue of fact to support a contrary finding.

Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott, Rivera and Abdus-Salaam concur.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.

Monette v. Trummer, 999 N.E.2d 174, 22 N.Y.3d 944 (N.Y. 2013).

Pincite

999 N.E.2d 174 (Monette v. Trummer) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related