Dunham v. City of New York

264 A.D. 732, 34 N.Y.S.2d 289, 1942 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4419
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedApril 20, 1942
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 264 A.D. 732 (Dunham v. City of New York) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Dunham v. City of New York, 264 A.D. 732, 34 N.Y.S.2d 289, 1942 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4419 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1942).

Opinion

Action brought in the Municipal Court of the City of New York, to recover damages for the loss of an automobile parked by plaintiff on a parking field operated by the defendant municipality at the New York World’s Fair. At the trial the complaint was dismissed at the close of plaintiff’s proofs. From the judgment entered in favor of defendant, plaintiff appealed to the Appellate Term, Second Department, which thereafter reversed that judgment and granted a new trial. From that order defendant appealed, by permission [see 262 App. Div. 962], to this court and stipulated that judgment absolute be rendered against it, in event of affirmance. Order of the Appellate Term affirmed, with costs, and judgment absolute rendered in favor of the plaintiff against the defendant, pursuant to stipulation. (Galowitz v. Magner, 208 App. Div. 6; Osborn v. Cline, 263 N. Y. 434, 437.) This ruling is not in conflict with that in Chamberlain v. Station Parking Service, Inc. (251 App. Div. 825) when the latter case is considered in the light of its peculiar facts. Lazansky, P. J., Hagarty and Taylor, JJ., concur; Carswell, J., dissents and votes to reverse the order of the Appellate Term and to affirm the judgment of the Municipal Court on the authority of Chamberlain v. Station Parking Service, Inc. (251 App. Div. 825); Adel, J., dissents and votes to reverse the order of the Appellate Term and to affirm the judgment of the Municipal Court, with the following memorandum: The proof established that the plaintiff simply hired a place to put his car and did not turn its possession over to the care and custody of the defendant. Parking the ear in the lot, securely locked, does not constitute turning over its possession so that a finding may be made that the transaction was a bailment.

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

Related

Garlock v. Multiple Parking Services, Inc.
103 Misc. 2d 943 (Buffalo City Court, 1980)
Ellish v. Airport Parking Co. of America, Inc.
42 A.D.2d 174 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1973)
Ellish v. Airport Parking Co. of America
69 Misc. 2d 837 (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 1972)
Security Mutual Insurance v. Airport Parking Co. of America
68 Misc. 2d 628 (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 1971)
Gold v. City of Newton
40 Mass. App. Dec. 136 (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div., 1968)
Nargi v. Parking Associates Corp.
36 Misc. 2d 836 (Civil Court of the City of New York, 1962)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
264 A.D. 732, 34 N.Y.S.2d 289, 1942 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4419, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dunham-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1942.