OPINION OF THE COURT
On August 15, 1990, plaintiff was driving a dump truck owned by his employer, Norman Tidd, when the truck’s left front tire blew out causing plaintiff to lose control of the vehicle. The truck rolled over several times ejecting plaintiff and his passenger. As a result of the accident, plaintiff was rendered a paraplegic. He commenced this action against defendant, owner of the automotive repair shop that issued a safety inspection certificate for the vehicle on March 12, 1990. Defendant, in turn, commenced a third-party action against Tidd’s estate and plaintiff. At issue on appeal is Supreme Court’s order denying defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint (
Defendant concedes for the purpose of summary judgment that he permitted Tidd’s truck to pass inspection with the defective tire that caused the subject accident. He nevertheless contends that he is entitled to summary judgment on the alternative grounds that his only duty of care in this case — to
As a threshold matter, we note our disagreement with defendant’s legal assumption that his only duty as a certified inspector in this case was to notify Tidd of the necessity to repair the truck and that such duty did not' extend to third parties, including plaintiff. In undertaking the inspection of Tidd’s truck as a licensed inspection station operator, defendant was obligated to, inter alia, conduct “a complete inspection” of the vehicle in conformity with all applicable rules and regulations (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 306 [d]; see, 15 NYCRR 79.20 [c] [6]), issue a certificate only if all prescribed mechanisms and equipment were “in proper and safe condition” (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 304 [a]; see also, 15 NYCRR 79.20 [a]; 79.21), notify Tidd of any necessary repairs (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 304 [b]; 15 NYCRR 79.5 [b]) and issue an “inspection rejection notice * * * if the condition of any item required to be inspected [was] found defective” (15 NYCRR 79.20 [a]; see, Vehicle and Traffic Law § 306 [d]).
Notably, inadequate tread and/or bumps, bulges and knots on a tire are grounds upon which to issue an inspection rejection notice (see, 15 NYCRR 79.21 [c] [1], [3]).
Similarly unavailing is defendant’s claim that intervening events, particularly plaintiffs knowledge of the tire’s defective condition on the day of the accident, break the causal chain between any negligence on his part and the accident. First, this argument is based on a factual premise, i.e., plaintiffs knowledge of the tire’s condition, that cannot be conclusively established on this record. Plaintiff testified at his examination before trial that he was not responsible for the maintenance on the truck and that, with the exception of a transmission problem, he never observed any mechanical problems with it. He also testified that, although he “vaguely” recalled hearing about problems with the truck’s tires, he assumed that they were taken care of prior to the accident.
Additionally, while a negligent defendant may be relieved of liability if the conduct of another has intervened to “break [] the chain of causal connection” between that defendant’s breach of duty and the ensuing injury (Mesick v State of New York,
Defendant’s remaining contentions have been reviewed and
Mikoll, J. P., Mercure, Crew III and Peters, JJ., concur.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
Notes
. By conceding that he permitted Tidd’s track to pass inspection with a defective tire, defendánt concomitantly concedes that he violated each of these statutory and regulatory provisions.
. Upon being notified of the need for repairs to a vehicle, an owner has 30 days within which to make such repairs (see, Vehicle and Traffic Law § 304 [b]; 15 NYCRR 79.5 [b]). If these repairs are not made, the owner must take the vehicle off the road as it is illegal to operate a motor vehicle on State public highways without a valid certificate of inspection (see, Vehicle and Traffic Law § 306 [b]; 15 NYCRR 79.5 [a]; see, e.g., People v Congregation Khal Chaisidei Skwere,
. Vehicle and Traffic Law § 309 (1) provides that “[t]he legislature hereby finds and declares that the safety of the motoring public depends on a modern system of periodic motor vehicle inspection” (emphasis supplied). Moreover, Vehicle and Traffic Law § 309 (2) provides that this State “recognize[s] the need for inspection of motor vehicles to assure its citizens that their safety would be protected by removing from its highways those cars whose mechanical condition did not meet rigid standards of safety” (emphasis supplied).