Platt v. Hertz Corp.

66 Misc. 2d 505, 321 N.Y.S.2d 613, 1971 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1686
Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York·Decided April 20, 1971·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Plaintiff has failed to show that defendant Hertz gave its express or implied permission to defendant Messina to drive the truck. Defendant may validly restrict the operation of its vehicle by an unlicensed driver pursuant to the terms of its written rental agreement signed by the lessee. (Burmaster v. State of New York, 7 N Y 2d 65, 70.)

The order should be reversed, with $10 costs, and motion denied.

Concur — Gold, J. P., Quran and Lupiano, JJ.

Order reversed,, etc.

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

Platt v. Hertz Corp., 66 Misc. 2d 505, 321 N.Y.S.2d 613, 1971 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1686 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1971).

66 Misc. 2d 505 (Platt v. Hertz Corp.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Li Fu v. Hong Fu
733 A.2d 1133 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1999)
Haggerty v. Cedeno
630 A.2d 848 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1993)
White v. Smith
398 F. Supp. 130 (D. New Jersey, 1975)