From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Alexander v. Radix

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 22, 2004
12 A.D.3d 544 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)

Opinion

2003-07634.

November 22, 2004.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant First Union Bank appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Jacobson, J.), entered July 30, 2003, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.

Before: Krausman, J.P., Crane, Fisher and Lifson, JJ., concur.


Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

On November 1, 2001, the infant plaintiff was struck by an automobile driven by the defendant Franklyn Radix and leased from Premier Ford, Inc. The lease was subsequently assigned to the defendant First Union Bank (hereinafter the bank). The plaintiffs alleged, inter alia, that the bank was vicariously liable for the infant plaintiff's injuries under Vehicle and Traffic Law § 388. The bank moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it, contending that it merely held a security interest in the vehicle and could not be deemed its owner.

The Supreme Court correctly determined that the bank is an owner of the vehicle under Vehicle and Traffic Law § 388 ( see Litvak v. Fabi, 8 AD3d 631, 632; Ryan v. Sobolevsky, 4 AD3d 222; Sullivan v. Spandau, 186 AD2d 641, 642-643; cf. Aronov v. Bruins Transp., 294 AD2d 523, 524). Accordingly, the bank's motion for summary judgment was properly denied.


Summaries of

Alexander v. Radix

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 22, 2004
12 A.D.3d 544 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
Case details for

Alexander v. Radix

Case Details

Full title:ALEXIA ALEXANDER et al., Respondents, v. FRANKLYN RADIX et al.…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Nov 22, 2004

Citations

12 A.D.3d 544 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
785 N.Y.S.2d 94

Citing Cases

Hoadley v. Banc One Acceptance Corporation

We conclude that Supreme Court erred in denying plaintiff's motion and in granting Banc One's cross motion.…

Chung v. Pinto

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs. Contrary to the contentions of the defendant Trans Capital…