Summary Judgment

Rankin Savidge secured a summary judgment dismissal in the matter of Reyes-Morel v. Moises Vargas, et al., Supreme Court, Bronx County on cross-motion pursuant to the Graves Amendment, successfully dismissing the action against Rankin Savidge client Enterprise Rent-a-Car.

The Supreme Court, Bronx County, quoting Clarke v Hirt, 46 Misc. 3d 571 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2014), stated “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 wrongdoing on the part of the owner.” See Clarke, 46 Misc. 3d at 571. The Court further goes on and states that in the instant matter, “the record [presented nothing] to suggest that the car was not properly maintained or that mechanical failure contributed to the accident. Upon review and consideration of the defendants’ EAN’s motion, this court finds that there is no dispute that the defendant, EAN, is a leasing company and therefore cannot be held liable as a lessor unless the vehicle was not in good and safe operating condition at the time of the accident.”

The Court further stated that plaintiff’s “hopeful” expression in its opposition papers of finding liability against our clients was insufficient to defeat our cross-moving papers as well as our reply papers.

Rankin Savidge secured a summary judgment dismissal in the matter of Wade v. City of New York, Supreme Court, Kings County, pursuant to Administrative Code § 7-210. The case involved a plaintiff who sustained injuries on a New York City public sidewalk. The Court found that the insured, the property owned adjacent to the sidewalk upon which the plaintiff fell and suffered her injuries, was not liable for the injuries suffered by the plaintiff. Defendant proved to the Court through the parties’ deposition testimony that the insured’s property was a residential property and that the insured did not create the defect, thus satisfying the requirements of Administrative Code § 7-210.

Rankin Savidge secured a summary judgment dismissal in the matter of Amantia v. Bell, Supreme Court, Suffolk County, involving an infant plaintiff who sustained personal injuries while playing together with an infant defendant on his parents’ property. Plaintiff alleged that defendants were negligent in the supervision of the infant plaintiff and infant defendant while they were engaged in play with a tennis ball and bat and that the infant defendant was himself negligent in the manner in which he conducted their game. Defendants argued that the infant defendant was not negligent as his actions were within the ordinary course of the game and that the infant defendant’s parents were not negligent in the supervision of the infant plaintiff and defendant.

Supreme Court Justice George Nolan granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment, holding that there was no evidence that the infant defendant was using the bat improperly or that it was not suitable for a boy of his age. Furthermore, Hon. Nolan found that the infant defendant was using the bat for its intended purpose and under the circumstances the bat was not a dangerous instrument. Hon. Nolan found that plaintiff’s general allegations of negligence were insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact. Furthermore, the Court found that there was nothing inherently unreasonable about the way the two boys were conducting their game.

In granting defendants’ motion, the Court stressed the long-standing principle in New York that “if children were to be held liable for damages resulting from accidents occurring during play, it would not only open the door for a new and vast field of litigation, but would also make it necessary for children to stand about with folded hands for fear they might negligently brush against one of their fellows and become liable”. (quoting Sutfin v. Scheuer, 145 A.D.2d 946 [4^th Dept. 1988]).