Corrigan v. DiGuardia
| Decision Date | 01 October 1990 |
| Parties | Wayne E. CORRIGAN, et al., Appellants, v. Sara M. DiGUARDIA, Defendant, Salvatore (Sal) DiGuardia, Respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Weber & Singer, Melville (Jules A. Epstein, of counsel), for appellants.
Pizzitola & Inzerillo, Smithtown (Robert J. Pellegrino, of counsel), for respondent.
Before BROWN, J.P., and KOOPER, HARWOOD and BALLETTA, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from (1) so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Gerard, J.), dated October 24, 1988, as granted those branches of the motion of the defendant Salvatore DiGuardia which were for summary judgment dismissing the first and "separate" causes of action as asserted against him, and (2) an order of the same court, dated April 19, 1989, which upon granting Salvatore DiGuardia's motion for reargument of those branches of his prior motion which were for summary judgment dismissing the "second separate" and "third separate" causes of action as asserted against him, dismissed those causes of action as asserted against him.
ORDERED that the orders are affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
On January 6, 1987, the defendant Sara DiGuardia, allegedly operating her motor vehicle in a negligent fashion, struck the plaintiff as he walked towards his automobile, which had been parked on Conklin Street near its intersection with Route 110 in the Town of Babylon. The plaintiffs thereafter commenced suit seeking to recover damages from 19-year-old Sara, as the operator of the vehicle, and from Salvatore DiGuardia, Sara's father, on the theory that Salvatore had "negligently entrusted" the automobile to his daughter. The plaintiffs also alleged that, although Sara was the named registrant of the automobile, Salvatore should be regarded as its actual owner, inasmuch as he purportedly exercised "dominion and control" over the vehicle and had purchased the automobile for her. The Supreme Court granted the motion for summary judgment with regard to the causes of action alleging that Salvatore was the actual owner of the automobile but denied the motion with respect to the cause of action sounding in negligent entrustment as well as the derivate claim. Upon Salvatore's motion for reargument, the court granted summary judgment dismissing these remaining causes of action as against him. We affirm both orders.
The papers submitted to the Supreme Court established that Sara DiGuardia was 19 years of age at the time of the accident (see, CPLR 105[j] and possessed a valid New York State driver's license. Moreover, the record further reveals that Sara purchased the car herself; that she was the named registrant of the car; that the car was separately insured in her name; and that she was not afflicted with mental or physical impairments at the time the accident occurred. The opposing papers submitted by the plaintiffs fail to raise any triable issues of fact with regard 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; ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Zegarowicz v. Ripatti
...evidence of ownership ( see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 2108[c]; Switzer v. Aldrich, 307 N.Y. 56, 120 N.E.2d 159; Corrigan v. DiGuardia, 166 A.D.2d 408, 560 N.Y.S.2d 472; Salisbury v. Smith, 115 A.D.2d 840, 496 N.Y.S.2d 105) and, thus, the Supreme Court erred in, upon reargument, adhering to ......
-
Portillo v. Carlson
...are material and relevant to the issue of whether the defendant exercised dominion and control over the vehicle (see Corrigan v. DiGuardia, 166 A.D.2d 408, 560 N.Y.S.2d 472 ; Young v. Seckler, 74 A.D.2d at 157–158, 426 N.Y.S.2d 311 ). Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted the p......
-
Yosi Trans, Inc. v. Toyota Motor Credit Corp.
...is insufficient ... to defer resolution of the questions pertaining to the [negligent entrustment cause of action]” (Corrigan v. DiGuardia, 166 A.D.2d 408, citing Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557, 562). YOSI also improperly contends that TMCC must come forward with evidence that......
-
Terranova v. Waheed Brokerage, Inc.
...Gioia, 39 A.D.3d 995, 998-999, 834 N.Y.S.2d 356; Aronov v. Bruins Transp., 294 A.D.2d 523, 524, 743 N.Y.S.2d 131;Corrigan v. DiGuardia, 166 A.D.2d 408, 409, 560 N.Y.S.2d 472; Matter of Vergari v. Kraisky, 120 A.D.2d 739, 740, 502 N.Y.S.2d 788). Therefore, the plaintiffs failed to satisfy th......