GRANT v. Justin C. Canaday, Defendant. (2019)

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Doris M. Gonzalez, J.), entered August 7, 2017, which granted the motion of defendant AAIJ African Market Corp. (AAIJ) for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims as against it, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion denied.

The failure to provide seatbelts in a taxicab is a violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 383, and constitutes negligence as a matter of law (see DiMauro v. Metropolitan Suburban Bus Auth., 105 A.D.2d 236, 246, 483 N.Y.S.2d 383 [2d Dept. 1984]; McMahon v. Butler, 73 A.D.2d 197, 199, 426 N.Y.S.2d 326 [3d Dept. 1980] ).  Where an injured party fails to wear an available seatbelt, such failure would go to damages, not liability (see Spier v. Barker, 35 N.Y.2d 444, 450, 363 N.Y.S.2d 916, 323 N.E.2d 164 [1974] ).  That is not the case when the vehicle owner fails to provide seatbelts in the first instance (see DiMauro at 246, 483 N.Y.S.2d 383;  McMahon at 199, 426 N.Y.S.2d 326).

Here, the alleged failure to provide seatbelts warranted denial of AAIJ's summary judgment motion.  That the vehicle that struck AAIJ's vehicle in the rear did not provide a nonnegligent reason for doing so does not relieve AAIJ of its alleged separate liability, if it is found to be a proximate cause of plaintiffs' injuries.

Furthermore, plaintiffs did not cross-move for summary judgment, and the record does not sufficiently reflect that AAIJ was placed on notice of the need to develop facts on the issue of whether seatbelts were present in the vehicle, and whether they were “clearly visible, accessible, and maintained in good working order” (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 383[4–b] ).  Accordingly, we decline plaintiffs' request to find AAIJ negligent as a matter of law.