Vita v. Hertz Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Vita v. Hertz Corp.

1 A.D.3d 155, 766 N.Y.S.2d 840, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11849

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

DecidedNovember 13, 2003

StatusPublished

This text of 1 A.D.3d 155 (Vita v. Hertz Corp.) 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

Vita v. Hertz Corp., 1 A.D.3d 155, 766 N.Y.S.2d 840, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11849 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

[156]*156Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Milton Tingling, J.), entered or about December 13, 2002, which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment to the extent of finding that plaintiffs recovery against defendant, if any, should be limited pursuant to California’s vicarious liability statute (Cal Veh Code §§ 17150, 17151) to $15,000, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff was allegedly injured in an automobile accident in California in a vehicle rented to him in that state by defendant. Inasmuch as it is undisputed that the vehicle was never used or operated in New York, New York’s vicarious liability statute (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 388) is expressly inapplicable and plaintiffs reliance upon it is unavailing. Application of the California statute, the only potentially applicable vicarious liability provision, was proper to assure that there would be some responsible party answerable in damages. Concur — Buckley, P.J., Mazzarelli, Andrias, Sullivan and Marlow, JJ.

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

[156]*156Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Milton Tingling, J.), entered or about December 13, 2002, which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment to the extent of finding that plaintiffs recovery against defendant, if any, should be limited pursuant to California’s vicarious liability statute (Cal Veh Code §§ 17150, 17151) to $15,000, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff was allegedly injured in an automobile accident in California in a vehicle rented to him in that state by defendant. Inasmuch as it is undisputed that the vehicle was never used or operated in New York, New York’s vicarious liability statute (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 388) is expressly inapplicable and plaintiffs reliance upon it is unavailing. Application of the California statute, the only potentially applicable vicarious liability provision, was proper to assure that there would be some responsible party answerable in damages. Concur — Buckley, P.J., Mazzarelli, Andrias, Sullivan and Marlow, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 A.D.3d 155, 766 N.Y.S.2d 840, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11849, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vita-v-hertz-corp-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack