Russell v. Kadiwar

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Russell v. Kadiwar

295 A.D.2d 146, 742 N.Y.S.2d 838, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5933

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJune 11, 2002

StatusPublished

This text of 295 A.D.2d 146 (Russell v. Kadiwar) 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

Russell v. Kadiwar, 295 A.D.2d 146, 742 N.Y.S.2d 838, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5933 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Gerald Esposito, J.), entered May 11, 2001, which denied defendant Keybank’s motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendant-appellant Keybank moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the basis that the nature of its interest in the vehicle precludes its liability under the New York Vehicle and Traffic Law. On appeal, however, Keybank argues the applicability of New Jersey law, which appears to offer it a more favorable disposition on this issue. Thus, the preliminary issue to be determined is the conflicts of law question, regarding whether New Jersey law or New York law ap[147]*147plies in ascertaining the liability, if any, of Keybank as a security title owner of the motor vehicle involved in the accident. We agree with the motion court that the nature of the ownership and consequences thereof are less than clear in the record and require further fact-finding. We also note, though, that the ultimate disposition of the conflicts of law issue will require fact-finding regarding plaintiffs residence at the time of the accident, especially in view of inconsistent information in the record in this regard. Concur—Williams, P.J., Tom, Saxe, Rubin and Friedman, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Gerald Esposito, J.), entered May 11, 2001, which denied defendant Keybank’s motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendant-appellant Keybank moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the basis that the nature of its interest in the vehicle precludes its liability under the New York Vehicle and Traffic Law. On appeal, however, Keybank argues the applicability of New Jersey law, which appears to offer it a more favorable disposition on this issue. Thus, the preliminary issue to be determined is the conflicts of law question, regarding whether New Jersey law or New York law ap[147]*147plies in ascertaining the liability, if any, of Keybank as a security title owner of the motor vehicle involved in the accident. We agree with the motion court that the nature of the ownership and consequences thereof are less than clear in the record and require further fact-finding. We also note, though, that the ultimate disposition of the conflicts of law issue will require fact-finding regarding plaintiffs residence at the time of the accident, especially in view of inconsistent information in the record in this regard. Concur—Williams, P.J., Tom, Saxe, Rubin and Friedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

295 A.D.2d 146, 742 N.Y.S.2d 838, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5933, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/russell-v-kadiwar-nyappdiv-2002.