Court Opinion

ID: 9942828
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-21 21:09:10.482021+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:44:44.327191
License: Public Domain

Bin Chan v Burns
               2024 NY Slip Op 30505(U)
                    February 15, 2024
           Supreme Court, New York County
        Docket Number: Index No. 452172/2019
                  Judge: Hasa A. Kingo
Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip
 Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York
 State and local government sources, including the New
  York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service.
 This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official
                       publication.
  FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/16/2024 03:20 PM                                                                   INDEX NO. 452172/2019
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 67                                                                                           RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/15/2024

                                   SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
                                             NEW YORK COUNTY
            PRESENT:                            HON. HASA A. KINGO                               PART                              05M
                                                           Justice
            ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X   INDEX NO.          452172/2019
             BIN CHAN,
                                                                                                 MOTION DATE         11/15/2023
                                                         Plaintiff,
                                                                                                 MOTION SEQ. NO.         002
                                                 -v-
             JEROME M. BURNS, ARROW CARS, NEW YORK CITY
                                                                                                   DECISION + ORDER ON
             POLICE DEPARTMENT
                                                                                                         MOTION
                                                         Defendant.
            ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X

            The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 002) 56, 57, 58, 59, 60,
            61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66
            were read on this motion to/for                                                        DISMISS                         .

                      Defendant ARROW CARS LTD. i/s/h/a ARROW CARS a/k/a ARROW RENT

            (hereinafter referred to as “ARROW”) moves, unopposed, for an order, pursuant to CPLR § 3211

            (a)(7), dismissing plaintiff BIN CHAN’s (“plaintiff”) summons and amended complaint as against

            it on the basis of plaintiff’s claims against defendant ARROW being barred pursuant to 49 U.S.C

            § 30106 as an improper party to the action under the Graves Amendment.

                      This is a personal injury action arising from a motor vehicle accident on January 3, 2017,

            at the intersection of Henry Street and Pikes Street, New York, NY. ARROW was the lessor of a

            2015 Honda Civic under license plate number GZT9761, Vin # 19XFB2F52FE281706. ARROW

            was the owner of the vehicle involved in the incident and leased by the NYC Police Department.

                      It is undisputed that ARROW was not a negligent party to this action as it was merely the

            titled owner of the subject vehicle. The sole issue, therefore, is whether ARROW may be amenable

            to vicarious liability under Vehicle and Traffic § 388.

             452172/2019 CHAN, BIN vs. BURNS, JEROME M.                                                              Page 1 of 4
             Motion No. 002

                                                                           1 of 4
[* 1]
  FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/16/2024 03:20 PM                                                 INDEX NO. 452172/2019
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 67                                                                       RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/15/2024

                   The Graves Amendment, regarding rented or leased motor vehicle safety and

            responsibility, bars vicarious liability actions against professional lessors and renters of vehicles,

            as would otherwise be permitted under Vehicle and Traffic Law § 388 (Gluck v Nebgen, 72 AD3d

            1023 [2d Dept 2010]; Graham v Dunk'ley, 50 AD3d 55 [2d Dept. 2008]; Hernandez v. Sanchez,

            40 AD3d 446 [1st Dept. 2007]).

                   In the instant case, it is undisputed that the vehicle at issue is a leased vehicle. ARROW

            submits the affidavit of Gary Stempa, claims specialist for ARROW, stating that the company

            engaged in leasing motor vehicles pursuant to lease agreements. The affidavit states that on

            November 18, 2016, the New York City Police Department signed a rental agreement as lessee

            with Arrow Rent as lessor. Further, since defendant/operator, Jerome M. Burns, is a police officer

            and not an employee of ARROW or acting pursuant to its instructions, the first element of 49

            U.S.C. § 30106 is satisfied.

                   In addition, a review of the complaint does not reveal any specific claims of negligence

            against ARROW. The only claim of negligence against ARROW is a general claim against all

            defendants. Plaintiff’s alleged claims against ARROW are for vicarious liability only.

            Accordingly, the second element of 49 U.S.C. § 30106 is satisfied.

                   Likewise, the Transportation Equity Act of 2005 contains an amendment that overrides and

            negates state’s vicarious liability for companies that lease and/or rent motor vehicles. As such, and

            pursuant to the statute, any matter filed after August 10, 2005 is subject to this provision. Since

            the action was commenced on or about December 29, 2017, it is barred by that statute.

                   The plain language of the statute that 49 U.S.C. §30106, barring vicarious liability for

            leased vehicles, expressly preempts New York State Vehicle and Traffic Law §388. The

            application of the Graves Amendment further dictates that entities engaged in the trade or business

             452172/2019 CHAN, BIN vs. BURNS, JEROME M.                                            Page 2 of 4
             Motion No. 002

                                                           2 of 4
[* 2]
  FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/16/2024 03:20 PM                                                INDEX NO. 452172/2019
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 67                                                                       RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/15/2024

            or renting/leasing of motor vehicles, such as ARROW, shall not be held liable for damages in the

            absence of any negligence or criminal wrongdoing. Actions such as this, based solely on vicarious

            liability, are therefore barred.

                    As ARROW is not a proper party to this action and is entitled to the protection from

            vicarious liability claims pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 30106, the complaint against ARROW must be

            dismissed.

                    Moreover, ARROW did not negligently entrust the operator of the motor vehicle. To state

            a claim for negligent entrustment, “the defendant must either have some special knowledge

            concerning a characteristic or condition peculiar to the person to whom a particular chattel is given

            which renders that person’s use of the chattel unreasonably dangerous” (see Byrne v. Collins, 77

            AD3d 782, 784 [2nd Dept 2010]).

                    To state a cause of action for negligent entrustment, plaintiff must establish that defendant

            ARROW had control over the vehicle and was negligent in entrusting it to a third party when

            ARROW knew, or in the exercise of ordinary care should have known, that the third-party was

            incompetent to operate the vehicle (see Bennett v. Geblein, 71 AD96, 99 [4th Dept 1979]).

                    Here, ARROW presented Gary Stempa’s affidavit in support of the proposition that it is

            engaged in the business of leasing vehicles, that the vehicle was operated pursuant to a lease

            agreement, that the licensed operator was not an employee of ARROW and that there were no

            mechanical issues with the leased vehicle in question which was not in the dominion or control of

            ARROW. The 2015 Honda Civic under New York license plate number GZT9761 was a leased

            vehicle and regularly serviced for mechanical upkeep.

                    Accordingly, as there are no triable issues of fact to be determined in this matter as to

            ARROW, the pre-emption of VTL § 388 and the federal statute 49 U.S.C. § 30106 bars any finding

             452172/2019 CHAN, BIN vs. BURNS, JEROME M.                                            Page 3 of 4
             Motion No. 002

                                                          3 of 4
[* 3]
  FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/16/2024 03:20 PM                                                    INDEX NO. 452172/2019
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 67                                                                            RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/15/2024

            of vicarious liability as to ARROW. As such, plaintiff’s amended summons and complaint must

            be dismissed as against ARROW pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 30106 on the grounds that ARROW is

            not a proper party under the Graves Amendment.

                    Accordingly, it is hereby

                    ORDERED that ARROW’s unopposed motion is granted in its entirety; and it is further

                    ORDERED that plaintiff’s amended summons and complaint is dismissed as against

            ARROW pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 30106 on the grounds that ARROW is not a proper party under

            the Graves Amendment.

                    This constitutes the decision and order of the court.

                    2/15/2024
                      DATE                                                           HASA A. KINGO, J.S.C.
             CHECK ONE:                   CASE DISPOSED                X    NON-FINAL DISPOSITION

                                      X   GRANTED             DENIED        GRANTED IN PART             OTHER

             APPLICATION:                 SETTLE ORDER                      SUBMIT ORDER

             CHECK IF APPROPRIATE:        INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN        FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT       REFERENCE

             452172/2019 CHAN, BIN vs. BURNS, JEROME M.                                               Page 4 of 4
             Motion No. 002

                                                           4 of 4
[* 4]