As most New York practitioners know already, Justice Polizzi (Supreme Court, Queens County) in Graham v. Dunkley held that that the Transportation Equity Act of 2005
was unconstitutional (see prior post).  As stated in the decision, the Act intends to
preempt all state statutes to the extent that they hold those owners in
the business of renting or leasing motor vehicles vicariously liable
for the negligence of drivers, except when there is negligence or
criminal wrongdoing on the part of the owner.  In New York, the Act
implicates Vehicle and Traffic Law sec. 388.  That part of the Act which impacts sec. 388 is known as the Graves Amendment.

Notably, several cases decided subsequent to Graham have addressed some aspect of the applicability of the Act, recognizing that the Graves Amendment preempts state law.  For example,
the Appellate Division, Second Department in Jones v. Bill discussed whether the relation-back doctrine applied in action that concerned the applicability of the Graves Amendment.  The Second Department did not discuss the constitutionality of the Graves Amendment, nor did it acknowledge Graham.  In fact, my reading of the appellate briefs revealed that neither party raised the constitutional issue.   

The Appellate Division, Fourth Department in Williams v. White cited Jones v. Bill,  and concerned a similar relation-back issue regarding the Graves Amendment.  The Fourth Department also ignored the Graham decision.

Perhaps the most surprising is another Queens County Supreme Court Justice ignored the Graham decision and applied the Graves Amendment — Infante v. U-Haul Co. of Fla.

What do these subsequent decisions say about the currency of Graham’s precedential value?  Seems to me that New York courts are just ignoring the Graham decision and treating it like an anomaly.  We’ll just have to see what the Second Department is going to do when it decides the Graham appeal.