DocketDrafterDocketDrafter

Same Defendant, Same Crash, Two Different Outcomes: What Graves Amendment Motions Live and Die On

The Second Department decided three Graves Amendment appeals on the same day from the same collision. Two were denied, one was granted. The difference came down to whether the defendant's evidence matched the specificity of the plaintiff's allegations.

Tommy EberleTommy Eberle

A rental car company moves for summary judgment under the Graves Amendment (49 U.S. Code § 30106). It submits the rental agreement, proof it is in the business of renting vehicles, and maintenance records for the car. The motion is denied. In a companion case arising from the same crash, the same defendant files an essentially identical motion. That one is granted.

The Trilogy

On July 16, 2025, the Second Department decided three appeals on the same day, all arising from a single September 2019 collision involving a vehicle owned by EAN Holdings. Same defendant, same defense counsel, same four-justice panel, same legal standard.

The results:

Two losses and a win, for the same defendant, from the same crash.

What Went Wrong

In Caldeira and Carrera, the plaintiffs alleged negligent maintenance of the vehicle's brakes and braking system. In Caldeira, the bill of particulars specifically alleged that EAN "failed to provide adequate or efficient brakes." In Carrera, the complaint alleged that EAN "was reckless, careless, and negligent in maintaining the vehicle's brakes and braking system."

EAN submitted maintenance records for the vehicle. But the records did not include any evidence that the brakes had been inspected or maintained before or around the time of the collision. The Second Department's conclusion was the same in both cases:

Although EAN submitted maintenance records for its rented vehicle, it did not submit any evidence to demonstrate that the vehicle's brakes or braking system had been inspected and/or maintained before or around the time of the September 2019 collision.

Because EAN failed to meet its prima facie burden on the fourth element (no negligence on the part of the owner), both motions were denied "regardless of the sufficiency of the opposing papers." It did not matter what the plaintiffs submitted in opposition. EAN never got there.

What Went Right

In De Rodriguez, the plaintiffs were passengers in the EAN vehicle itself (not in the other car). The court found that EAN established all four elements of a Graves Amendment defense, including that "there is no triable issue of fact as to the plaintiffs' allegation of negligent maintenance contributing to the September 2019 collision." The plaintiffs in opposition "failed to raise a triable issue of fact."

Same vehicle, same maintenance records, same defendant, same motion papers. The difference was the specificity of the plaintiffs' allegations. When the complaint and bill of particulars did not zero in on a particular component like the brakes, the general maintenance records were enough to carry the movant's burden. When the pleadings targeted the braking system, those same records fell short because they did not address the specific component at issue.

The Pattern Is Bigger Than One Case

This is not a one-off result. The same evidentiary-specificity problem shows up across recent Graves Amendment decisions.

In Kurtaj v. Borax Paper Prods., Inc. (2d Dept 2024), the lease submitted in support of the motion failed to identify whether it even covered the truck involved in the accident or the duration of the lease term for that truck, and the movant failed to include any sworn statement from anyone with personal knowledge of the leases or the vehicle. On top of that, the court noted that "to the extent that the plaintiff's theory of negligent maintenance was supported by factual allegations, the defendants failed to submit documentary evidence that utterly refuted these factual allegations." The motion was denied.

In Sheridan v. Silvera Event Furnishing Inc. (Sup Ct Kings County 2025), the plaintiff conceded that the Graves Amendment barred vicarious liability against Penske, and the court granted that branch of the motion. But Penske's own service manager, Jeffrey Kowalski, testified that the truck failed the "One Minute Brake Test" one month before the accident and again three months after, and that it needed adjustments for not meeting Department of Transportation "Stroke" Measurement requirements. That testimony created triable issues on the negligent maintenance claim, and the court denied summary judgment on that branch.

In Sherpa v. VW Credit Leasing Ltd. (Sup Ct NY County 2024), the court found that the lease attached to the motion papers was illegible, the assignment of the lease to VW Credit Leasing was never submitted, and VW's own General Risk Manager "gave no details concerning the purported assignment and did not state that he had personal knowledge of the transactions at issue." The motion was denied.

The thread that connects all of these: the defendant's evidence did not match the level of specificity the case required.

What Winning Submissions Look Like

Contrast those results with motions that succeeded.

In Bluvshteyn v. EAN Holdings, LLC (Sup Ct Kings County 2024), EAN submitted a Risk Specialist affidavit with supporting records, deposition transcripts, and marked deposition photos. The court found that the vehicle "did not have a prior history of complaints or maintenance issues, and was otherwise in good working order." The plaintiffs' opposition failed to raise a triable issue, and the complaint was dismissed as against EAN and National Car.

In Pinzon v. United Rentals N. Am., Inc. (2d Dept 2024), the movant established all four elements with specificity, and the court granted summary judgment. Pinzon is cited favorably in De Rodriguez itself.

In White v. U-Haul Co. of Ariz. (2d Dept 2024), U-Haul moved for summary judgment before any depositions were even scheduled. The plaintiff argued the motion was premature, but the Second Department held that "[t]he mere hope or speculation that evidence sufficient to defeat a motion for summary judgment may be uncovered during the discovery process is insufficient to deny the motion."

The common thread in the wins: evidence that directly addressed what the plaintiff alleged.

The Takeaway

The Graves Amendment is strong law. When the evidence matches the allegations, these motions are granted routinely, often on the papers alone and sometimes before discovery is complete.

The problem is almost never the legal standard. It is almost always the proof.

The cases above illustrate a consistent principle: the movant's evidence must address the specific allegations in the complaint and bill of particulars. If the plaintiff alleges defective brakes, maintenance records need to show brake inspections. If the plaintiff alleges a steering defect, the submission needs steering maintenance. Generic fleet records showing oil changes and tire rotations do not address a specific allegation about brakes, and the Second Department has now made that clear in the starkest possible terms: same defendant, same crash, two different outcomes.

These motions live and die on whether the evidence matches the allegations.

About This Research

I'm Tommy Eberle, CEO and co-founder of DocketDrafter. I'm not a lawyer. I compiled this analysis by:

  • Searching CourtListener for all Graves Amendment opinions in New York state from 2024 to present, which returned 25 opinions
  • Downloading all 25 opinions and using Claude Code to organize them by issue
  • Identifying the Caldeira/Carrera/De Rodriguez trilogy as the most interesting pattern
  • Using Claude Code to help draft the article, then manually validating all quotes against the original opinions and adding clickable links to every case cited

If you have comments or want to discuss the research process in detail, email me at tommy@docketdrafter.com.