Statement Pursuant to CPLR 2219

Pursuant to CPLR 2219(a), the Court considered the following papers in connection with the motion by Defendant THE HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC. (improperly sued as THE HOME DEPOT, INC.) for summary judgment pursuant to CPLR § 3212:

1. Notice of Motion dated April 3, 2025, and Affirmation of Steve H.S. Choe, Esq., in Support with Exhibits (NYSCEF Doc Nos. 69—71);

2. Affidavit of Bryan Partridge, Senior Manager of Rental Operations (NYSCEF Doc No. 71, Ex. 7);

3. Affidavit of Javier Medina, Legal Specialist (NYSCEF Doc No. 79);

4. Maintenance and Rental Contract Records (NYSCEF Doc No. 71, Ex. 4);

5. Deposition Transcript of Omar Delgado, dated March 27, 2025 (NYSCEF Doc No. 86);

6. Affirmation in Opposition by Plaintiff's counsel Michael A. Simon, Esq., dated February 20, 2025, with Exhibits (NYSCEF Doc Nos. 54, 83);

7. Business Auto Declarations from Old Republic Insurance Company (NYSCEF Doc No. 89);

8. Reply Affirmation of Steve H.S. Choe, Esq., dated May 12, 2025 (NYSCEF Doc No. 88).

I. Facts

This negligence action arises from a motor vehicle collision that occurred on September 14, 2024, at approximately 6:30 P.M., at or near the intersection of Richmond Terrace and Nicholas Avenue, Staten Island, New York. Plaintiff Careem Taylor was operating a 2018 Honda sedan when he was allegedly struck by a 2023 Ford Transit truck, bearing New York license plate 97030ND, operated by Defendant Bryant Bullock.

The truck was rented to Bullock by Defendant THE HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC. ("Home Depot") on September 1, 2024, and the rental was extended by telephone on the morning of the accident. The return date was September 28, 2024. The vehicle was owned and registered to Home Depot.

Home Depot submitted affidavits from Bryan Partridge, Senior Manager of Rental Operations, and Javier Medina, Legal Specialist, establishing that the truck was rented in the ordinary course of business, that it was properly maintained, and that Bullock was not an employee or agent of Home Depot at the time of the accident (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 71; 77; 78; 79).

Plaintiff contends that Bullock may have submitted a fictitious insurance policy number when entering into the rental agreement, and that Home Depot's acceptance of that information without verifying its authenticity constituted negligence sufficient to defeat immunity under the Graves Amendment, 49 U.S.C. § 30106.

II. Conclusions of Law

A. Summary Judgment Standard

A party seeking summary judgment bears the burden of establishing entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by showing the absence of material issues of fact (Zuckerman v City [*2]of New York, 49 NY2d 557 [1980]; Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320 [1986]). Once that burden is met, the opposing party must come forward with competent proof in admissible form sufficient to raise a triable issue.

B. The Graves Amendment — Federal Preemption of Vicarious Liability

The Graves Amendment, 49 U.S.C. § 30106, preempts state laws that impose vicarious liability on vehicle owners solely by reason of ownership when the vehicle is leased or rented. The statute provides, in relevant part:

An owner of a motor vehicle that rents or leases the vehicle to a person . . . shall not be liable under the law of any State . . . by reason of being the owner . . . for harm . . . that results or arises out of the use, operation, or possession of the vehicle . . . if—

(1) the owner is engaged in the trade or business of renting or leasing motor vehicles; and

(2) there is no negligence or criminal wrongdoing on the part of the owner.

The Second Department has held that this provision overrides New York Vehicle and Traffic Law § 388 unless the plaintiff pleads and proves that the vehicle owner acted with independent negligence or engaged in criminal wrongdoing (see Graham v Dunkley, 50 AD3d 55, 58—60 [2d Dept 2008]; Olmann v Neil, 132 AD3d 744 [2d Dept 2015]).

In Graham, the court affirmed that Congress acted within its constitutional authority under the Commerce Clause in enacting the Graves Amendment. The court recognized that imposing liability on lessors solely by reason of ownership—even in cases involving purely intrastate activity—substantially affects interstate commerce and is therefore properly subject to federal regulation. The decision emphasized that the Graves Amendment promotes consistency in the national vehicle rental market and reduces economic burdens on lessors caused by state-by-state vicarious liability regimes.

This rationale has been repeatedly adopted by New York courts. See also Vaccaro v Francolopez, 205 AD3d 760 [2d Dept 2022]; Harewood v Zip Car, 189 AD3d 1192 [2d Dept 2020]; Eisenberg v Cope Bestway Express, Inc., 131 AD3d 1198 [2d Dept 2015]; Hernandez v. Sanchez, 40 AD3d 446 [1st Dept 2007]; Jones v Bill, 34 AD3d 741 [2d Dept 2006]). "Absent some evidence of a lessor's failure to properly maintain a vehicle which it has expressly agreed to maintain pursuant to a lease agreement, or some similar active negligence on the part of the lessor, [49 USCS § 30106 [a] [2]] the negligence clause, is rarely applicable and should be cautiously applied in light of Congress' clear intent to forestall suits against vehicle leasing companies" (see Clarke v Hirt, 46 Misc 3d 571 [Sup Ct, Queens County 2014] citing Dubose v Transp. Enter. Leasing, LLC, 2009 USDist LEXIS 5693, [MD Fl 2009] cf.; Terranova v Waheed Brokerage, Inc., 78 AD3d 1040 [2d Dept 2010]; Collazo v MTA-New York City Tr., 74 AD3d 642 [1st Dept 2010]).

New York courts have further held that

a rental company may be liable if it allows an unlicensed driver, or a driver without a valid license, to operate a vehicle. Although this obviously requires that rental car companies assess the facial validity of a driver's license before renting to that driver or otherwise allowing that driver to operate a vehicle, this duty does not require the company to investigate a renter's driving record where that renter has presented a valid driver's license (see Jaffery v PV Holding Corp., 2017 NYLJ LEXIS 1467 [Sup Ct, [*3]Queens County 2017] citing Sigaran v ELRAC, Inc., 22 Misc 3d 1101(A) [Sup Ct, Bronx County 2008]).

1. Commercial Rental Activity

Home Depot has demonstrated, through undisputed business records and sworn affidavits, that it is engaged in the business of renting vehicles, and that the subject truck was rented to Bullock in the ordinary course of that business. Plaintiff raises no factual dispute on this point.

2. No Negligence or Criminal Wrongdoing

Plaintiff's principal argument is that Home Depot negligently permitted Bullock to rent the truck using a potentially fictitious insurance policy number. However, this contention is speculative and unsupported by admissible evidence. Plaintiff has submitted no documentation from Liberty Mutual, no affidavit, and no admissible record establishing the invalidity of the policy.

Moreover, Home Depot has submitted its Business Auto Declarations (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 89) demonstrating that it was self-insured through Old Republic Insurance Company. This coverage satisfies Vehicle and Traffic Law § 370 [3] and eliminates any obligation to confirm the renter's third-party insurance.

C. Plaintiff's Argument Under Vehicle and Traffic Law § 370

1. Statutory Framework

VTL § 370 [3] permits vehicle lessors to satisfy New York's financial responsibility requirements by maintaining their own insurance or qualifying as self-insured. The statute does not require the lessor to verify the insurance status of the lessee when the lessor maintains qualifying coverage. It creates no private right of action and does not establish a duty to monitor or investigate a renter's independent policy.

2. Home Depot's Statutory Compliance

Home Depot's policy through Old Republic (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 89) constitutes qualifying insurance under VTL § 370 [3]. Thus, even if Bullock lacked personal coverage or listed an invalid policy number, Home Depot satisfied its statutory obligation and owed no further duty of verification.

3. Preemption Applies Even if a Technical Violation Existed

Even if a technical violation of VTL § 370 were assumed, the Graves Amendment preempts state statutory duties imposed on vehicle lessors absent a showing of independent negligence. As reaffirmed in Graham v Dunkley, state laws that impose owner liability in the absence of fault are expressly preempted under the Supremacy Clause and the Commerce Clause.

III. Procedural Status of Defendant Bryant Bullock

By Decision dated January 16, 2025 (Motion Sequence No. 002), the Court granted Plaintiff's motion for default judgment against Defendant Bryant Bullock but directed Plaintiff to [*4]settle an order on notice with a copy of the transcript of proceedings.

Plaintiff failed to comply with that directive. No proposed order was submitted. No transcript was filed. As a result:

• No judgment has been entered;

• No notice of entry has been served on Bullock;

• The one-year period under CPLR § 5015 [a] [1] to vacate the default has not begun to run;

• No inquest may be scheduled.

The default against Bullock thus remains inchoate and without operative effect. Plaintiff's inaction has forestalled further proceedings as to Bullock.

IV. Conclusion and Decretal Paragraphs

Defendant THE HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC. has established its entitlement to summary judgment under CPLR § 3212 and the Graves Amendment. There is no evidence of negligence, statutory violation, or wrongdoing. Plaintiff's opposition is grounded in conjecture and legally insufficient to defeat preemption or raise a triable issue of fact.

Accordingly, it is:

ORDERED that the motion of Defendant THE HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC. (s/h/a THE HOME DEPOT, INC.) for summary judgment is GRANTED in its entirety; and it is further

ORDERED that the Complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice as against Defendant THE HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC.; and it is further

ORDERED that the action shall continue solely as against Defendant BRYANT BULLOCK; and it is further

ORDERED that Plaintiff shall have twenty (20) days from receipt of the transcript of proceedings in connection with Motion Sequence No. 002 to serve and settle an order on notice regarding the default against Defendant Bryant Bullock; and it is further

ORDERED that if Plaintiff fails to serve and settle said order within thirty (30) days from the date of this Decision and Order, the Court shall, without further notice, mark the case off calendar and dismiss the action in its entirety as abandoned pursuant to CPLR 3216, for failure to prosecute.

This constitutes the final Decision and Order of the court. The clerk shall enter judgment accordingly.