The opinion
Sheridan v Silvera Event Furnishing Inc.
2025 NY Slip Op 32413(U)
July 7, 2025
Supreme Court, Kings County
Docket Number: Index No. 529936/2021
Judge: Carolyn E. Wade
Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip
Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York
State and local government sources, including the New
York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service.
This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official
publication.
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 07/07/2025 04:39 PM INDEX NO. 529936/2021
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 178 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/07/2025
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF KINGS: HON. CAROLYNE. WADE, JSC
-------------------------------------------------------------X
MATTHEW SHERIDAN, Index No.: 529936/2021
Plaintiff, Motion Seq. No. 4
-against-
DECISION AND ORDER
SILVERA EVENT FURNISHING INC.,
LARRY LAHMEL ROBINSON, and PENSKE
TRUCK LEASING CO., L.P.,
Defendants.
-----------------------------------------------------------· X
SILVERA EVENT FURNISHING INC.,
Third-Party Plaintiff,
-against-
PENSKE TRUCK LEASING CO., L.P.,
Third-Party Defendant.
-----------------------------------------------------------· X
The following papers were read on Defendant/Third-Party Defendant PENSKE TRUCK
LEASING CO., L.P. 's ("Penske") motion for partial summary judgment, under CPLR §3212(e),
dismissing Plaintiff MATTHEW SHERIDAN's ("Plaintiff') vicarious liability claim (NYSCEF
Doc. Nos. 137-152, 157-159, 163-166, and 170-173) ("Motion"). The Motion further requests
summary judgment, under CPLR §3212, dismissing Third-Party Plaintiff SILVERA EVENT
FURNISHING INC.'s ("Silvera") Complaint and Crossclaim for negligence, improper, and /or
inadequate maintenance of the truck; and granting Penske' s Counterclaim for indemnification
and/or contribution from Silvera.
Upon the foregoing papers, and after oral argument, Penske's Motion is decided as follows:
On May 13, 2021, Defendant LARRY LAHMEL ROBINSON ("Robinson") was operating
a truck, owned by Penske and leased to Silvera ("Penske truck"), within the scope of his
1
1 of 4
[* 1]
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 07/07/2025 04:39 PM INDEX NO. 529936/2021
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 178 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/07/2025
employment with Silvera. The Penske truck collided with the rear of Plaintiffs motor vehicle
("Accident").
In support of their motion, Silvera and Robinson argues that Penske may be liable for
negligently maintaining the brakes of the Penske truck. In support, Silvera cites to two brake test
failures conducted by Penske, and a statement allegedly made by a prior Silvera employee about
the condition of the Penske truck's brakes three to four months prior to the Accident. In addition,
Silvera argues that the indemnification provision of the lease agreement between Penske and
Silvera ("lease agreement") is void and unenforceable as it violates General Obligations Law
("GOL'') §5-321.
In opposition, Penske asserts that it was not negligent in the maintenance of the Penske
truck. Penske adjusted and corrected the brake issues and released the Penske truck in good
working condition to Silvera. In addition, the Penske truck passed a State inspection eight days
prior to the Accident. Furthermore, Penske asserts that, pursuant to the lease agreement, they are
entitled to indemnification from Silvera.
Plaintiff concedes that the Graves Amendment precludes his vicarious liability claims
against Penske. Silvera and Robinson take no position on Plaintiffs vicarious liability claim. As
such, the portion of Penske's motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of vicarious
liability is granted.
A defendant establishes that it is free from negligence by demonstrating that it exercised
reasonable care in maintaining the subject vehicle and that it was in good condition at the time of
the Accident. (Ballatore v. HUB Truck Rental Corp., 83 AD3d 978 [2d Dept 2011]; Leggio v.
Gearhart, 294 AD2d 543 [2d Dept 2002]).
2
2 of 4
[* 2]
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 07/07/2025 04:39 PM INDEX NO. 529936/2021
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 178 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/07/2025
A defendant establishes its prima facie entitlement to summary judgment by providing
evidence that the brakes ofthe subject vehicle involved in an Accident were functioning adequately
for a period of days prior to the Accident and immediately before the collision. (Vaccariello v.
Meineke Car Care Ctr., Inc., 136 AD3d 890 [2d Dept 2016] [internal citation omitted]). In
opposition, a non-moving party must "produce evidentiary proof in admissible form sufficient to
require a trial of material questions of fact on which he rests his claim." (Zuckerman v. City ofNew
York, 49 N.Y.2d 557,562 [1980]).
In the instant action, Penske introduced the deposition testimony of two of its employees.
Both employees testified that the Penske truck was in good working condition when it was released
to Silvera, with all existing brake issues adjusted and corrected. Furthermore, the Penske truck
subsequently passed a State Required Admissions Inspection on May 5, 2021-eight days before
the Accident. Contrary Penske's evidentiary proof, their service manager, Jeffrey Kowalski, also
testified that, one month before the accident, as well as three months after the accident, the truck
in question fail~d the "One Minute Brake Test" and also needed adjustments due to not meeting
Department of Transportation requirements in terms of "Stroke" Measurements. As such,
questions of fact exist as to whether Penske may be held liable to Plaintiff, Silvera, and/or
Robinson for its own acts and omissions, including its negligent, improper and/or inadequate
maintenance of the vehicle and all claims relating to maintenance of the vehicle involved in the
Accident.
Courts have long recognized that indemnification agreements will be enforced, even where
they provide indemnity for a party's own negligence. (Sherry v. Wal-Mart Stores East, L.P., 67
AD3d 992 [2d Dept 2009]). An exception to this general rule exists in GOL § 5-321, which states:
"Every covenant, agreement or understanding in or in connection with or collateral to any lease of
3
3 of 4
[* 3]
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 07/07/2025 04:39 PM INDEX NO. 529936/2021
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 178 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/07/2025
real property exempting the lessor [ ... ] from the negligence of the lessor [ ... ] shall be deemed to
be void as against public policy and wholly unenforceable."
Here, the GOL applies to real property, not motor vehicle lease agreements. Parties are
entitled to contractual indemnification where the applicable indemnity provision is "not subject to
any section of the General Obligations Law that would render it void as against public policy for
purporting, on its face, to indemnify the [parties seeking indemnification] for their own
negligence[.]" (Gortych v. Brenner, 83 AD3d 497, 498 [1st Dept 2011]). As such, the indemnity
provision in the lease agreement for the Penske truck is enforceable and Penske is entitled to
indemnification and/or contribution from Silvera.
Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED that the portion of Penske's motion for partial summary judgment on the
vicarious liability claim is GRANTED; and it is further
ORDERED that the portion of Penske's motion for summary judgment dismissing
Silvera's negligent maintenance is DENIED. The portion of Penske's motion for summary
judgment for common law indemnification, contractual indemnification, and contribution against
Silvera is GRANTED.
This constitutes the Decision and Order of the Court.
ENTER:
HON. CAROLYN E. WADE
JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT
4
4 of 4
[* 4]