From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Sullivan v. Alamo Rental Corporation

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 3, 1996
228 A.D.2d 430 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)

Opinion

June 3, 1996

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Leone, J.).


Ordered that the order is modified, on the law, with costs, by deleting the provision thereof which granted that branch of the plaintiff's motion which was to strike the fifth affirmative defense, and substituting therefor a provision denying that branch of the motion; as so modified the order is affirmed.

The plaintiff was injured in an automobile accident which occurred in Florida, when the vehicle operated by the codefendant Jennifer Bloom, a friend whom she was visiting, collided with a vehicle operated by a Florida domiciliary, Dwight Horan. Horan had leased his vehicle from the codefendant Alamo Rental Corporation, a Florida-based corporation. The codefendant Bloom was a Florida domiciliary, as were her parents, the owners of the automobile she was driving and in which the plaintiff was a passenger.

Contrary to the Supreme Court's determination, the State of Florida has the greater interest in having its laws applied to the subject litigation ( see, Padula v. Lilarn Props. Corp., 84 N.Y.2d 519, 521; Cooney v. Osgood Mach., 81 N.Y.2d 66; Neumeier v Kuehner, 31 N.Y.2d 121, 128; Reale v. Herco, Inc., 183 A.D.2d 163). The significant contacts are clearly with the State of Florida and the application of Florida's law would comport with the reasonable expectations of the parties ( see, Cooney v. Osgood Mach., supra, at 78). Moreover, we find nothing in Florida's applicable laws which could be described as offensive to any relevant New York public policy; nor is there present in this matter any deeply rooted New York tradition which would be compromised upon the application of Florida law ( see, Cooney v Osgood Mach., supra, at 78-79). Accordingly, the court erred in striking the fifth affirmative defense that Florida law governs this action.

In light of the foregoing determination, we do not reach the appellant's contention regarding the applicability of CPLR article 16. Thompson, J.P., Altman, Goldstein and McGinity, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Sullivan v. Alamo Rental Corporation

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 3, 1996
228 A.D.2d 430 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
Case details for

Sullivan v. Alamo Rental Corporation

Case Details

Full title:DAWN SULLIVAN, Respondent, v. ALAMO RENTAL CORPORATION, Appellant, et al.…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Jun 3, 1996

Citations

228 A.D.2d 430 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
643 N.Y.S.2d 222

Citing Cases

Darby v. Avis Rent A Car System, Inc.

South Carolina law, however, does not impose vicarious liability upon the owner of a vehicle for the…