Appellate Division, Fourth Department · July 24, 2026 · 2026 NY Slip Op 04592
The Graves Amendment does not protect a dealership that lent a courtesy car for free
O’Hare v Eddo
Read the official decision: 2026 NY Slip Op 04592
Holding The Graves Amendment does not preempt state vicarious liability claims against a car dealership that provides a courtesy vehicle free of charge to a customer. Because the dealership did not receive payment for the use of the vehicle, it did not ‘rent’ the vehicle within the ordinary meaning of the federal statute.
Why it matters
Clarifies the scope of the Graves Amendment in New York, specifically rejecting the broader ‘consideration’ interpretation used in other jurisdictions like the 11th Circuit and Massachusetts.
The court’s words
an owner must receive payment for the use of the vehicle to meet that statutory condition
2026 NY Slip Op 04592, at the official text
preemption clauses in a statute are to be narrowly construed and that matters beyond their scope are not preempted
2026 NY Slip Op 04592, at the official text
a reasonable reader competent in English would not contemplate that dropping a vehicle off for service and obtaining a complimentary loaner vehicle [free of charge, even if the car dealership receives incentive payments from the manufacturer for providing the courtesy vehicle] constitutes a . . . rental situation
2026 NY Slip Op 04592, at the official text
| Court | Appellate Division, Fourth Department |
|---|---|
| Decided | July 24, 2026 |
| Citation | 2026 NY Slip Op 04592 |
| Area of law | Personal Injury and Negligence |
| Week | Week ending July 25, 2026 |
| Official text | Official decision: 2026 NY Slip Op 04592 |
| Publication status | Slip opinions are uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports. |
| Source feed | New York slip opinion page |
| Law Watch record id | 352 |
Same court and area in the last 180 days
- Saraceno v Mazikowski2026 NY Slip Op 04695
The court affirmed summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff’s complaint, holding that the defendant was immune from liability under General Obligations Law § 9-103 because the plaintiff was engaged in hunting or sufficiently related activity. Additionally, the court found that the defendant met its burden under ordinary premises liability principles by showing the decedent did not create the dangerous condition or have notice of it.
- Bushley v New York State Thruway Auth.2026 NY Slip Op 04686
The court held that the reckless disregard standard of care under Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1103(b) did not apply because the snowplow driver was traveling between parts of his route on a road he was not responsible for plowing. Consequently, the driver was found negligent for making an illegal right turn on red, and judgment on liability was granted in favor of the claimant.
- Brennan v Kandon, LLC2026 NY Slip Op 04685
The court modified the lower court’s order to reinstate the plaintiff’s claim that defendants failed to maintain the premises in a reasonably safe condition, as defendants failed to establish they did not create the dangerous condition. However, the dismissal of the claim that defendants were negligent in failing to warn of the dangerous condition was affirmed.
- Sterk v State of New York2026 NY Slip Op 04673
The court affirmed the denial of summary judgment for both parties, finding that while claimants failed to establish a dangerous condition as a matter of law based on design standards, defendants failed to establish the absence of a dangerous condition due to triable issues regarding the bollard’s concealment by other bicyclists.
- Kessler v Carr2026 NY Slip Op 04672
The court affirmed the denial of the plaintiff’s cross-motion for summary judgment on the issue of serious injury, finding that conflicting expert opinions regarding causation and the nature of the cervical spine injury raised triable issues of fact. The majority determined that the plaintiff failed to meet her initial burden because her own submissions included evidence that contradicted her expert’s opinion on the existence of herniated discs and the causal link to the accident.
Recommended citation
ESQ HQ, New York Law Watch, O’Hare v Eddo, 2026 NY Slip Op 04592 (Appellate Division, Fourth Department, July 24, 2026), https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-04592/
How this record was made
Holding drafted by Law Watch’s in-house model, graded by three reviewers; every quotation verified word for word against the official text.
Read how Law Watch worksFeatured by Eric McAvey, November 14, 2026.