From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hardeman v. Mendon Leasing Corp.

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Feb 15, 1983
58 N.Y.2d 892 (N.Y. 1983)

Opinion

Decided February 15, 1983

Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department, EDWARD J. AMANN, JR., J.

Harry Organek and Howard S. Davis for appellant.

Norman Bard for respondent.



On review of submissions pursuant to rule 500.2 (b) of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 N.Y.CRR 500.2 [g]), order affirmed, with costs, for the reasons stated in the opinion by Justice JOSEPH P. SULLIVAN at the Appellate Division ( 87 A.D.2d 232). We add that (1) subdivision 3 of section 388 of the Vehicle and Traffic Law expressly makes the liability of lessor and lessee joint and several, and (2) there was no due process violation because the lessor's agent gave permission in fact and had the authority under Mendon's contract with Midtown to refuse to do so.

Concur: Chief Judge COOKE and Judges JASEN, JONES, WACHTLER, FUCHSBERG, MEYER and SIMONS.


Summaries of

Hardeman v. Mendon Leasing Corp.

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Feb 15, 1983
58 N.Y.2d 892 (N.Y. 1983)
Case details for

Hardeman v. Mendon Leasing Corp.

Case Details

Full title:GUSS HARDEMAN, Respondent, v. MENDON LEASING CORP., Appellant, et al.…

Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York

Date published: Feb 15, 1983

Citations

58 N.Y.2d 892 (N.Y. 1983)
460 N.Y.S.2d 499
447 N.E.2d 47

Citing Cases

Palenkas v. Beaumont Hosp

Rowan v Nassau Co, 91 A.D.2d 608; 456 N.Y.S.2d 418 (1982).Brown v Penrod Drilling Co, 534 F. Supp. 696 (WD…

Walls v. Zuvic

This section gives rise to a presumption that the vehicle is being operated with the owner's consent (see,…