Opinion
Index No. 31344/2017E
02-05-2021
Francisco Maria, Plaintiff, v. Mercedes-Benz Manhattan, Inc., et al., Defendant.
Unpublished Opinion
DECISION AND ORDER
Mary Ann Brigantti, J.S.C.
Upon the foregoing papers, defendant's motions (Sequence 3 and 4) are decided as follows:
This action arises from an alleged motor vehicle accident that occurred on May 18, 2017, on Dyckman Street, at or near its intersection with 10th Avenue, in the New York County. Movant Mercedes-Benz Manhattan, Inc. ("Mercedes"] submits the affidavit of its employee, which states that on the date of the alleged subject accident, while Mercedes owned the vehicle that was "leased" to the individual defendant Richard Roman. Mercedes represents that is in the business of renting and leasing motor vehicles, and that it was not responsible for any maintenance to the subject vehicle while it remained "under rental" to defendant Roman. The "Loaner/Rental Agreement" required that Roman maintain the subject vehicle while it was in his possession. Roman acknowledged in the agreement that the vehicle was in good physical and mechanical possession at the time that he received the vehicle. Mercedes argues that under these facts, it is protected from liability under the Graves Amendment.
The one-page "Loaner/Rental Agreement" contains no provision for a rental fee.
The plaintiff raises various hearsay arguments concerning the sufficiency of the affidavit submitted by the defendant's employee. The plaintiff also alleges that a "loaner" agreement is beyond the scope of the Graves Amendment.
On August 10, 2005, Congress amended the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users by enacting the so-called Graves Amendment (49 USCS § 30106). The Graves Amendment preempts the Vehicle and Traffic Law to the extent of barring the imposition of vicarious liability on vehicle lessors for injuries resulting from the negligent use or operation of the leased vehicle. The Graves Amendment applies "to any action commenced on or after the date of enactment of this section." (See 49 USC § 30106 [c]; Jones v. Bill, 10 N.Y.3d 550, 553, 890 N.E.2d 884, 885-886, 860 N.Y.S.2d 769, 770-771 [2008].)
In relevant part, the Graves Amendment provides:
"(a) In general. An owner of a motor vehicle that rents or leases the vehicle to a person (or an affiliate of the owner) shall not be liable under the law of any State or political subdivision thereof, by reason of being the owner of the vehicle (or an affiliate of the owner), 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 USCS § 30106[a].) (EMPHASIS ADDED.)
Plaintiff argues that the Graves Amendment does not protect the loaning of a vehicle by a car dealer without charge to a patron of a car dealership. In Zizersky v Life Quality Motor Sales, Inc. (21 Misc.3d 871, 866 N.Y.S.2d 501 [Sup Ct, Kings County 2008]), plaintiff was driving her car when it collided with a vehicle driven by the individual defendant. The individual defendant's vehicle was a "loaner" given to the individual defendant to use while her vehicle was being serviced by the dealer. The court rejected the argument of the dealership defendants that the alleged "right to repair the vehicle" transmuted the loan into a "rental" or "lease" for purposes of the Graves Amendment. Instead, the arrangement constituted a "simple bailment" (id. at 875). Notably, in making this determination, the court found that "the central distinguishing characteristics of a lease is the surrender of absolute possession and control of property for the agreed-upon rent" (id. at 878). Moreover, the Court reasoned that inclusion of dealer "loaners" would not comport with the intent or purpose of the Graves Amendment. (See also, Murphy v. Pontillo, 12 Misc.3d 1146, 1147-1148, 820 N.Y.S.2d 743, 744 [Sup Ct, Nassau Co. 2006] ["Counsel also notes that the agreement between the defendants is actually entitled "Rental/Loaner Agreement," which provides for the term of the rental to be a single day, as the date and time out was "10/8/04" and the date due as expiration of the contract was also "10/08/04." Counsel also notes that there is no proof that Pontillo ever paid for the use of the vehicle, and thus there is a question of whether he just borrowed it, which would arguably make the Graves Amendment inapplicable.")
While this Court has located no appellate case directly on point, the First Department has implied that the Graves Amendment does not protect a "loaner" vehicle. In this regard, the First Department distinguished between "rental companies" which are clearly protected by the Graves Amendment, and other entities not protected by the Graves Amendment - the latter category including repair shop owners that provide "loaner" vehicles, and car dealerships that provide test drives. While it is true that the First Department addressed only repair shop "loaners" and did not directly address car dealerships that provide "loaner" vehicles (as opposed to test drives), the distinction between true rentals and other uses is significant:
"Plaintiffs vicarious liability claims against respondent are barred by 49 USC § 30106, the "Graves Amendment." We reject plaintiffs argument that the Graves Amendment violates the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution (Graham v Dunkley, 50 A.D.3d 55, 852 N.Y.S.2d 169 [2d Dept 2008], appeal dismissed 10 N.Y.3d 835, 859 N.Y.S.2d 607, 889 N.E.2d 484, 2008 NY Slip Op 70255 [2008] [no substantial constitutional question involved], revg 13 Misc.3d 790, 827 N.Y.S.2d 513 [2006]; see also Hernandez v Sanchez, 40 A.D.3d 446, 447, 836 N.Y.S.2d 577 [1st Dept 2007]). We also reject plaintiffs argument that the Graves Amendment violates equal protection by favoring car rental companies over other vehicle owners, such as taxi owners, repair shop owners who provide loaner vehicles to customers, and car dealerships that allow test drives, who also allow others to operate their vehicles. The renting of vehicles has
a clear substantial effect on interstate commerce (Graham, 50 A.D.3d at 61-62), unlike these other activities, and the same rational basis for regulating the renting of vehicles under the Commerce Clause even in purely intrastate instances--that elimination of vicarious liability will result in a reduction of insurance costs that will in turn result in a reduction of consumer prices and allow more lessors to remain in business (see id. at 61) - supports the classification for purposes of equal protection. We have considered and rejected plaintiffs other arguments." (Hall v. Elrac, Inc., 52 A.D.3d 262, 262-263, 859 N.Y.S.2d 641, 642, [1st Dept. 2008] [EMPHASIS ADDED].)
Consequently, assuming that the movants' affidavit satisfies hearsay concerns, the movants have not established as a matter of law that the defendant's vehicle was leased or rented for the purposes of the Graves Amendment.
Sequence No. 3 is permitted to be withdrawn as per the letter of the movant filed under NYSCEF Doc. No. 71.
Accordingly, it is hereby, ORDERED that the motion (Motion Sequence No. 4) is denied.
This constitutes the Decision and Order of the Court.