Camillone v. Popham by Popham
| Decision Date | 29 January 1990 |
| Citation | 550 N.Y.S.2d 722,157 A.D.2d 816 |
| Parties | Debra CAMILLONE, et al., Respondents, v. Peter S. POPHAM, an Infant, by His Father and Natural Guardian, Clinton POPHAM, Defendant, Clinton Popham, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
William K. Capshaw, Elmsford (Gordon Danis, of counsel), for appellant.
Lesser & Schwartz, New York City (William M. Lesser, of counsel), for respondents.
Before THOMPSON, J.P., and BROWN, EIBER and ROSENBLATT, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries and property damage, the defendant Clinton Popham appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Miller, J.), entered March 31, 1989, which denied his motion for partial summary judgment dismissing the plaintiffs' second and fourth cause of action alleging negligent entrustment of a dangerous instrumentality.
ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion is granted.
On March 20, 1985, the defendant Peter Popham allegedly operated his motor vehicle in a negligent manner which caused the plaintiffs' vehicle to be involved in an accident in which the plaintiffs sustained injuries. The plaintiffs seek to recover damages for these personal injuries from the defendant, Peter Popham, as the operator and owner of the vehicle, and from Clinton Popham, as the father and legal guardian of 17-year-old Peter Popham under the theory of negligent entrustment of a dangerous instrumentality. The defendant Clinton Popham moved for partial summary judgment dismissing the second and fourth causes of action which allege negligent entrustment of a dangerous instrumentality. The Supreme Court denied the motion. We reverse and find that Clinton Popham did not negligently entrust a dangerous instrumentality to his son (see, Nolechek v. Gesuale, 46 N.Y.2d 332, 413 N.Y.S.2d 340, 385 N.E.2d 1268).
The papers submitted in support of Clinton Popham's motion for partial summary judgment allege that his son Peter was 17 years of age at the time of the accident and possessed a New York State driver's license. Peter had purchased and maintained the car with his own funds and was the named registrant of the vehicle and the named insured under the policy of insurance. The papers further allege that Clinton Popham took no part in the purchase of the vehicle and that neither he nor his wife had a set of keys to their son's car. The papers submitted by the plaintiffs in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Miller v. O'Mara Family Farms, Inc.
... ... control over a chattel (Camillone v Popham, 157 ... A.D.2d 816, 817 [2d Dept 1990]) and a special knowledge that ... the ... ...
-
Corrigan v. DiGuardia
...to the foregoing facts, requiring the dismissal of the claims premised upon the negligent entrustment theory (see, Camillone v. Popham, 157 A.D.2d 816, 550 N.Y.S.2d 722; Rosenfeld v. Tisi, 151 A.D.2d 739, 542 N.Y.S.2d 762; Borregine v. Klang, 144 A.D.2d 415, 534 N.Y.S.2d 7, see also, Fische......
-
Guay v. Winner
...cases (Larsen v. Heitmann, 133 A.D.2d 533, 519 N.Y.S.2d 904; Rosenfeld v. Tisi, 151 A.D.2d 739, 542 N.Y.S.2d 762; Camillone v. Popham, 157 A.D.2d 816, 550 N.Y.S.2d 722) relied solely on a lack of retained ownership or control as summarily dispositive of a negligent entrustment cause of acti......
-
Fischer v. Lunt
...Moreover, the record establishes that Bradley Lunt's use of the vehicle was not subject to his parent's control (see, Camillone v. Popham, 157 A.D.2d 816, 550 N.Y.S.2d 722; Borregine v. Klang, 144 A.D.2d 415, 534 N.Y.S.2d 7; Larsen v. Heitmann, 133 A.D.2d 533, 519 N.Y.S.2d 904, lv. denied 7......