Case ID: misc2d_66/html/0505-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Per Curiam.\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Edward Platt, Respondent, v. Hertz Corp., Appellant, et al., Defendant.
    Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department,
    April 20, 1971.
    
      
      Cymrot, Wolin & Simon (Benjamin Heller of counsel), for appellant. Freeman & Smith (Ronald W. Freeman of counsel), for respondent.
   Per Curiam.

Plaintiff has failed to show that defendant Hertz gave its express or implied permission to defendant Messina to drive the truck. Defendant may validly restrict the operation of its vehicle by an unlicensed driver pursuant to the terms of its written rental agreement signed by the lessee. (Burmaster v. State of New York, 7 N Y 2d 65, 70.)

The order should be reversed, with $10 costs, and motion denied.

Concur — Gold, J. P., Quran and Lupiano, JJ.

Order reversed,, etc.