In a recent ruling, the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York decided that the defendants in a personal injury case were not liable for injuries caused by a stolen utility vehicle. This decision affects the parties involved in the case and clarifies the legal responsibilities of vehicle owners in similar situations.
The case, titled Grinberg v. Vistas of Port Jefferson, LLC, was filed under docket number 2025-10035. The plaintiff, Yevgeny Grinberg, alleged that he was injured when a John Deere utility vehicle backed into him at a gas station in April 2020. Grinberg claimed that the defendants, Vistas of Port Jefferson, LLC, and Arlen Contracting of PJ, LLC, were negligent in their ownership and management of the vehicle, which led to his injuries.
The dispute arose when Grinberg sought damages for his injuries, asserting that the defendants were responsible for the operation of the utility vehicle. However, the defendants argued that the vehicle had been stolen from their property the night before the incident. This claim became central to the case as it raised questions about the liability of vehicle owners when their vehicles are stolen and used without permission.
The case reached the Appellate Division after the Supreme Court of Kings County denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment in July 2025. The defendants appealed this decision, seeking to have the court dismiss the amended complaint against them.
In its ruling on October 7, 2026, the Appellate Division reversed the lower court's decision. The court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, effectively dismissing the amended complaint against them. The judges involved in the decision included Colleen D. Duffy, Barry E. Warhit, Lourdes M. Ventura, and Lisa S. Ottley.
The court stated, "The defendants demonstrated their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the amended complaint... by submitting substantial evidence sufficient to show that the utility vehicle was stolen at the time of the incident and was not being operated with the defendants' consent." This key finding highlighted the importance of proving that a vehicle was stolen to rebut the presumption of permissive use.
Additionally, the court noted that the ignition key for the utility vehicle was hidden in the glove compartment, which complied with Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1210(a). This law requires vehicle owners to take certain precautions to prevent theft, including ensuring that keys are not easily accessible to potential thieves.
The court emphasized that the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition to the defendants' claims. The judges concluded that the Supreme Court should have granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, leading to the dismissal of the amended complaint.
This ruling has significant implications for personal injury cases involving vehicle ownership and liability. It clarifies that vehicle owners may not be held liable for injuries caused by stolen vehicles, provided they can demonstrate that the vehicle was indeed stolen and not being operated with their permission. This decision may influence how similar cases are approached in the future, particularly regarding the responsibilities of vehicle owners.
The outcome of this case could set a precedent for future personal injury claims involving stolen vehicles. It reinforces the idea that vehicle owners must take reasonable steps to secure their vehicles, but they are not liable for actions taken by individuals who steal and misuse those vehicles.
Looking ahead, it is unclear if the plaintiff will seek to appeal this decision. The court filing did not provide information on whether Grinberg plans to pursue further legal action. Additionally, there are no related cases pending that were mentioned in the court opinion.