Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Shakira MARTINEZ, Plaintiff–Respondent, v. STERICYCLE, INC., Defendant–Appellant. “John Doe,” Uber Technologies, Inc., et al., Defendants,
Andrew V. Bennett, Defendant–Respondent. Stericycle, Inc., Third–Party Plaintiff–Appellant, v. Andrew V. Bennett, Third–Party Defendant–Respondent.
Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Bianka Perez, J.), entered January 23, 2024, which denied defendant Stericycle, Inc.’s motion for summary judgment dismissing all claims and cross-claims as against it, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Plaintiff seeks to recover damages for injuries allegedly sustained when she was a passenger in an Uber van that was struck by a tractor truck owned by defendant Jones & Jones Trucking LLC (Jones), which was towing a trailer owned by Stericycle. Stericycle does not dispute that Jones and its drivers had permission to haul Stericycle's trailer when the accident occurred.
When two vehicles are used in combination, “by attachment or tow,” including tractors and trailers, “the person using or operating any one vehicle shall ․ be deemed to be using or operating each vehicle in the combination, and the owners thereof shall be jointly and severally liable hereunder” (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 388[1]; see Travelers Ins. Co. v. Gen. Acc., Fire & Life Assur. Corp., 28 N.Y.2d 458, 461, 322 N.Y.S.2d 704, 271 N.E.2d 542 [1971]). Here, Stericycle failed to rebut the presumption of vicarious liability arising under Vehicle and Traffic Law § 388(1) (see Xuezhen Dong v. Cruz–Marte, 223 A.D.3d 463, 463, 203 N.Y.S.3d 47 [1st Dept. 2024]).
The motion court was not required to consider Stericycle's argument, raised for the first time on reply, that the federal Graves Amendment (49 USC § 30106) relieved it of liability (see Guzman v. Mike's Pipe Yard, 35 A.D.3d 266, 825 N.Y.S.2d 480 [1st Dept. 2006]). This contention was not directly responsive to any arguments in plaintiff's opposition. In any event, Stericycle failed to proffer any evidence of the applicability of the Graves Amendment (see Ventura v. Lubman, 217 A.D.3d 616, 616–617, 192 N.Y.S.3d 92 [1st Dept. 2023]). Stericycle made no showing that it operated as a commercial lessor of motor vehicles, or that any lease agreement existed between it and Jones. To the contrary, the record reflected that Stericycle paid Jones to haul its trailers to its waste disposal facilities.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Docket No: 3580
Decided: January 28, 2025
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)