Villa-Capellan v. Mendoza

135 A.D.3d 555, 25 N.Y.S.3d 72
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJanuary 19, 2016
Docket16477 308638/12
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 135 A.D.3d 555 (Villa-Capellan v. Mendoza) 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
Villa-Capellan v. Mendoza, 135 A.D.3d 555, 25 N.Y.S.3d 72 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Sharon A. M. Aarons, J.), entered January 13, 2015, which granted defendant U-Haul Company of Arizona’s (U-Haul) motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

On November 27, 2010, a vehicle owned by U-Haul and operated by defendant Mendoza collided with a vehicle owned and *556 operated by plaintiff. Mendoza had rented the U-Haul vehicle on November 27, 2010, and returned it the following day.

Under the Graves Amendment, the owner of a leased or rented motor vehicle cannot be held vicariously liable “for harm to persons or property that results or arises out of the use, operation, or possession of the vehicle during the period of the rental or lease, if — (1) the owner (or an affiliate of the owner) is engaged in the trade or business of renting or leasing motor vehicles; and (2) there is no negligence or criminal wrongdoing on the part of the owner (or an affiliate of the owner)” (49 USC § 30106 [a]; sec Jones v Bill, 10 NY3d 550, 553 [2008], cert dismissed 555 US 1028 [2008]). U-Haul sufficiently established that the accident was not the result of any negligent maintenance of the vehicle on its part through, inter alia, evidence that Mendoza intentionally caused the collision as part of a scheme in which he was offered a cash payment to participate in the accident. In opposition, plaintiff, who was the unwitting victim of Mendoza’s scheme, offered only speculation that the vehicle had been negligently maintained by U-Haul. Accordingly, U-Haul was entitled to summary judgment dismissal under the Graves Amendment. Concur — Friedman, J.P., Acosta, Andrias and Richter, JJ.

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

Related

Leiba v. CB Livery Leasing LLC
2026 NY Slip Op 30928(U) (New York Supreme Court, New York County, 2026)
Steigelman v. Transervice Lease Corp.
2022 NY Slip Op 06451 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2022)
Kalair v. Fajerman
202 A.D.3d 625 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2022)
Puchades v. Taube Mgt. Realty LLC
2018 NY Slip Op 917 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
Reifsnyder v. Penske Truck Leasing Corp.
140 A.D.3d 572 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
135 A.D.3d 555, 25 N.Y.S.3d 72, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/villa-capellan-v-mendoza-nyappdiv-2016.