![]() Zipcar has not pointed to any evidence that it did obtain exclusive use of the vehicle from Union Leasing for the length of its lease. A.) Zipcar argues that it was not an owner by virtue of this lease, however, because it did not have exclusive use of the vehicle and in fact relinquished control to its members on a near daily basis. Plaintiff’s asserted basis for liability against Zipcar is Vehicle and Traffic Law §388(1), which provides that “very owner of a vehicle used or operated in this state shall be liable and responsible for death or injuries to person or property resulting from negligence in the use or operation of such vehicle….” Plaintiff asserts that Zipcar is an “owner,” as the term is defined in Vehicle and Traffic Law §128 to “include any lessee or bailee of a motor vehicle or vessel having the exclusive use thereof, under a lease or otherwise, for a period greater than thirty days.” Zipcar admits that it leased the vehicle from Union Leasing and the SeptemRegistration Document for the vehicle is in Zipcar’s name and expired on September 30, 2009. ![]() Although Plaintiff filed the motion after Zipcar filed a motion to dismiss and refers to his motion as a “cross-motion,” it was noticed as a motion, not a cross-motion, and not automatically withdrawn when Zipcar withdrew its motion. Now before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability.Īs an initial matter, Plaintiff’s motion is properly before the Court and not withdrawn. Zipcar had leased the vehicle Douglas was driving from its title owner, non-party Union Leasing. Zipcar is a membership-based business that, after an application process and pursuant to a “membership contract,” provides cars to its members for an hourly or daily charge. Douglas had the use and possession of his vehicle pursuant to his membership in Defendant Zipcar New York (“Zipcar”). Plaintiff Leslie Minto alleges that his vehicle was rear-ended while stopped at a red light by a vehicle driven by Defendant Dale Douglas, named here as Douglas Dale. **This is a personal injury action arising from a motor vehicle collision. ![]() Upon the foregoing papers it is ordered that this motion is decided as follows: Supplemental Affirmation in Opposition 10 Supplemental Affirmation in Opposition – Exhibits 8 – 9 Notice of Motion – Affirmation in Support – Exhibits 1 – 3Īffirmation in Opposition – Exhibits 4 – 5 The following papers numbered1 to 11 read on this motion for summary judgment. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |