Source: https://nylaw.typepad.com/new_york_civil_law/2007/03/what_is_the_pre.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 16:03:47+00:00

Document:
New York Civil Law: What is the Precedential Value of Graham v. Dunkley?
What is the Precedential Value of Graham v. Dunkley?
As most New York practitioners know already, Justice Polizzi (Supreme Court, Queens County) in Graham v. Dunkley held that that the Transportation Equity Act of 2005 was unconstitutional (see prior post). As stated in the decision, the Act intends to preempt all state statutes to the extent that 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. In New York, the Act implicates Vehicle and Traffic Law sec. 388. That part of the Act which impacts sec. 388 is known as the Graves Amendment.
the Appellate Division, Second Department in Jones v. Bill discussed whether the relation-back doctrine applied in action that concerned the applicability of the Graves Amendment. The Second Department did not discuss the constitutionality of the Graves Amendment, nor did it acknowledge Graham. In fact, my reading of the appellate briefs revealed that neither party raised the constitutional issue.
The Appellate Division, Fourth Department in Williams v. White cited Jones v. Bill, and concerned a similar relation-back issue regarding the Graves Amendment. The Fourth Department also ignored the Graham decision.
Perhaps the most surprising is another Queens County Supreme Court Justice ignored the Graham decision and applied the Graves Amendment -- Infante v. U-Haul Co. of Fla.
What do these subsequent decisions say about the currency of Graham's precedential value? Seems to me that New York courts are just ignoring the Graham decision and treating it like an anomaly. We'll just have to see what the Second Department is going to do when it decides the Graham appeal.
On September 11, 2006, Queens County Supreme Court Justice Thomas V.
the owner of the leased vehicle involved in the suit (Sharon Graham v.
26358) is not immune from liability.
Clause of the United States Constitution."
Southern economy, which depended on exports.
Madison and the war against the British.
infractions as of the mode and measure of redress."
who insisted loudest on states' rights, were called "Old Republicans"
into the 1820s and 1830s.
and the war, and discussed secession from the Union.
their allegiance to that Union for which their ancestors had fought.
declared South Carolina's course unwise and unconstitutional.
had demonstrated that a single state could force its will on Congress.
the 1857 Dred Scott decision of the U.S. Supreme Court.
off the rights of the states."
that a government is better when closer to the population.
marijuana, the last of which is in violation of federal law.
particular state or region -- again, the South.
are mandated by the vehicle owners themselves.
make leasing companies responsible for the negligence of drivers.
My cursory search of Westlaw finds that the Tenth Amendment to the U.S.
now, this decision stands out as quite the oddity.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 V.

 v.