Platt v. Hertz Corp.
Edward Platt v. Hertz Corp.
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
Per Curiam.
Plaintiff has failed to show that defendant Hertz gave its express or implied permission to defendant Messina to drive the truck. Defendant may validly restrict the operation of its vehicle by an unlicensed driver pursuant to the terms of its written rental agreement signed by the lessee. (Burmaster v. State of New York, 7 N Y 2d 65, 70.)
The order should be reversed, with $10 costs, and motion denied.
Concur — Gold, J. P., Quran and Lupiano, JJ.
Order reversed,, etc.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 3 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Most recent
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.