Hassan v. Montuori

Altman, J.P.,

concurs in part and dissents in part and votes to affirm the order insofar as appealed from with the following memorandum in which Prudenti, J., concurs: While I agree with the majority that Mrs. Hassan was an owner of the vehicle within the meaning of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 128 and that the cross claims asserted against the appellant Hendel Products, Inc., should not be dismissed, I would affirm the Supreme Court’s denial of summary judgment to the appellants.

The Supreme Court properly concluded that Mrs. Hassan can maintain an action against the appellants (see, Griffin v…