122 West 29th Street Realty Corp. v. West 29th Street Parking Lot

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

122 West 29th Street Realty Corp. v. West 29th Street Parking Lot

27 A.D.2d 519, 275 N.Y.S.2d 123, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2939

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided December 6, 1966·Published

Opinion

Determination of the Appellate Term affirming an amended judgment of the Civil Court entered July 1, 1965 which awarded $845.73 to plaintiffs-respondents after a trial without a jury, unanimously reversed, on the law and the facts, without costs and disbursements to any party, and a new trial granted to both defendants-appellants in the interests of justice. The action is for property damage to plaintiffs’ premises which was caused by an automobile owned by the defendant, Newhouser (now deceased). At the time of the accident, the ear was in the custody of the defendant parking lot but was operated by one Ramirez, who was not an employee of the parking lot. There is insufficient evidence in the record to support a finding that Ramirez was authorized to move ears for the parking lot and this defect permeates the ease against both defendants. Moreover, it appears that additional proof could have been adduced not only on this issue but on the question of certain alleged defects in the ear. Consequently, a new trial should be held (see 7 Weinstein-Korn-Miller, N. Y. Civ. Prac., par. 5522.05; cf. Baccialon v. Guerra, 282 App. Div. 755). Concur — Breitel, J. P., Rabin, McNally and Witmer, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Determination of the Appellate Term affirming an amended judgment of the Civil Court entered July 1, 1965 which awarded $845.73 to plaintiffs-respondents after a trial without a jury, unanimously reversed, on the law and the facts, without costs and disbursements to any party, and a new trial granted to both defendants-appellants in the interests of justice. The action is for property damage to plaintiffs’ premises which was caused by an automobile owned by the defendant, Newhouser (now deceased). At the time of the accident, the ear was in the custody of the defendant parking lot but was operated by one Ramirez, who was not an employee of the parking lot. There is insufficient evidence in the record to support a finding that Ramirez was authorized to move ears for the parking lot and this defect permeates the ease against both defendants. Moreover, it appears that additional proof could have been adduced not only on this issue but on the question of certain alleged defects in the ear. Consequently, a new trial should be held (see 7 Weinstein-Korn-Miller, N. Y. Civ. Prac., par. 5522.05; cf. Baccialon v. Guerra, 282 App. Div. 755). Concur — Breitel, J. P., Rabin, McNally and Witmer, JJ.

122 West 29th Street Realty Corp. v. West 29th Street Parking Lot, 27 A.D.2d 519, 275 N.Y.S.2d 123, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2939 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1966).

Pincite

27 A.D.2d 519 (122 West 29th Street Realty Corp. v. West 29th Street Parking Lot) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related