Ruben Collazo v. Mta-New York

9 Citing cases

  1. Clarke v. Hirt

    46 Misc. 3d 571 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2014)   Cited 4 times

    The Graves Amendment, regarding rented or leased motor vehicle safety and responsibility, bars vicarious liability actions against professional lessors and renters of vehicles, as would otherwise be permitted under Vehicle and Traffic Law § 388 (see Gluck v. Nebgen, 72 A.D.3d 1023, 898 N.Y.S.2d 881 [2d Dept.2010] ; Graham v. Dunkley, 50 A.D.3d 55, 852 N.Y.S.2d 169 [2d Dept.2008] ; Hernandez v. Sanchez, 40 A.D.3d 446, 836 N.Y.S.2d 577 [1st Dept.2007] ). However, the courts have held in this regard that although the Graves Amendment bars negligence claims against car-rental companies based solely on a theory of vicarious liability (see Graham v. Dunkley,supra ; Hernandez v. Sanchez,supra .), a claim based upon negligent maintenance is not barred by the Graves Amendment since the statute does not absolve leasing companies of their own negligence (see Collazo v. MTA–New York City Tr., 74 A.D.3d 642, 905 N.Y.S.2d 30 [1st Dept.2010] ; Novovic v. Greyhound Lines, Inc., 2008 WL 5000228, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 94176 [E.D.N.Y.2008] ). The Transportation Equity Act of 2005 (49 USC § 30106 ) provides in pertinent part: § 30106 Rented or leased motor vehicle safety and responsibility.

  2. Rosado v. Cepeda

    219 A.D.3d 1236 (N.Y. App. Div. 2023)

    Even if this Court were to find that Just Four Wheels and Cepeda established a reasonable justification for failing to provide the documentation, and that they demonstrated Just Four Wheels was engaged in the business of renting or leasing vehicles, they failed to establish Just Four Wheels is entitled to summary judgment based on the Graves Amendment. There is an issue of fact as to whether the vehicle involved in the accident was the vehicle leased to Defendant Cepeda, and who his employer was, and whether the braking system for the subject box truck failed prior to impacting the rear of plaintiff's stopped vehicle (see 49 USC § 30106 [a][2]; Collazo v. MTA–New York City Tr., 74 A.D.3d 642, 643, 905 N.Y.S.2d 30 [1st Dept. 2010] ).

  3. Franklin v. Chalov

    2018 N.Y. Slip Op. 30771 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2018)

    Thus, the statute preempts the vicarious liability imposed pursuant to Vehicle and Traffic Law § 388 with respect to actions commenced after its effective date (see Jones v Bill, 10 NYS3d 550, 554, [2008]; Hall v Elrac Inc., 52 AD3d 262 [1st Dept 2008]; Hernandez v Sanchez, 40 AD3d 446 [1st Dept 2007]). Nevertheless, vicarious liability is not abrogated where the injury or damages results from the negligence of the owner or its employee in the operation or maintenance of the vehicle, nor where it seems the owner was negligent in entrusting the vehicle to the operator (see Collazo v MTA-New York City Transit, 74 AD3d 642 [1st Dept 2010]; Sigaran v Elrac, Inc., 22 Misc3d 1101(A)[Sup Ct, Bronx County 2008]). Here, Ryder asserts that the plaintiff has failed to state a cause of action against it inasmuch as Ryder is protected by the Graves Amendment.

  4. Siegel v. James T Robinson, FW Webb Co.

    2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 30286 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2016)

    Based upon the arguments set forth in the moving papers, this Court finds thafa grant of summary judgment to the defendants, dismissing the instant action against defendant Enterprise FM Trust based upon the Graves Amendment is premature at this time. (Collazo v MTA-New York City Transit, 74 AD3d 642 [1st Dept 2010]). Further discovery is warranted in order to ascertain what liability, if any, defendant Enterprise FM Trust may have.

  5. Tejada v. Gomez

    2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 32369 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2015)

    "(2) there is no negligence or criminal wrongdoing on the part of the owner (or an affiliate of the owner)" However, the courts have held in this regard that although the Graves Amendment bars negligence claims against car-rental companies based solely on a theory of vicarious liability (Graham v Dunkley, supra; Hernandez v Sanchez, supra.), a claim based upon negligent maintenance is not barred by the Graves Amendment since the statute does not absolve leasing companies of their own negligence (Collazo v MTA-New York City Tr., 74 AD3d 642, 905 N.Y.S.2d 30 [1st Dept. 2010]; Novovic v Greyhound Lines, Inc., 2008 U.S. Dist LEXIS 94176 [ED NY 2008]). There is no question that the Graves Amendment preempts all state statutes to the extent they hold those owners in the business of renting or leasing motor vehicles vicariously liable for the negligence of drivers, except when there is negligence or criminal wrong doing on the part of the owner (Clarke v Hirt, 46 Misc. 3d 571 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2014)).

  6. Anchundia v. Ortiz

    2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 31028 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2015)

    Since the examination before trial of Garrett, who could provide information as to whether the vehicle was malfunctioning at the time of the accident, has not yet taken place, the court finds the instant motion to be premature. See Collazo v. MTA - New York City Tr., 74 A.D.3d 642, 905 N.Y.S.2d 30 (1st Dept. 2010); Terranova v. Waheed Brokerage, Inc., 78 A.D.3d 1040, 912 N.Y.S.2d 253 (2nd Dept. 2010). Additionally, while Elrac asserts that the co-defendants have caused a delay in the taking of depositions in this case, Hernandez, Narvaez and Narvaez-Ortiz each claim that depositions of the defendants have been scheduled to be held by the end of October 2014.

  7. Chavez v. JVK Enters. Ltd.

    2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 33804 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2014)

    The cases relied upon by the court in its prior order support the court's reasoning. See Terranova v. Waheed Brokerage, Inc., 78 A.D.3d 1040 (2nd Dept. 2010); Collazo v. MTA-New York City Transit, 74 A.D.3d 642 (1st Dept. 2010)

  8. Moreau v. Josaphat

    42 Misc. 3d 345 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2013)   Cited 1 times

    However, a claim based upon negligent maintenance, also alleged by plaintiffs, is not barred by the Graves Amendment because it does not absolve leasing companies of their own negligence ( see Collazo v. MTA–New York City Tr., 74 A.D.3d 642, 905 N.Y.S.2d 30 [2010] ). Thereafter, Zipcar's counsel sent a letter to plaintiffs' counsel advising that Zipcar was not a proper party to the suit based upon the Graves Amendment, and asked that plaintiffs voluntarily discontinue the action against Zipcar.

  9. Aubry v. U-Haul Co. of Ariz.

    37 Misc. 3d 1215 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2012)

    Rather, plaintiff's complaint also alleges negligent maintenance of the U–Haul truck. Inasmuch as plaintiff thus seeks to hold U–HAZ directly liable for its own negligence, the Graves Amendment (49 USC § 30106) does not bar the claim ( see, Collazo v. MTA–New York City Tr., 74 A.D.3d 642, 905 N.Y.S.2d 30 [1st Dept.2010]; see also, Terranova v. Waheed Brokerage, Inc., 78 A.D.3d 1040, 912 N.Y.S.2d 253 [2nd Dept.2010].)