Emerson Coat Co. v. Becker Cloak Co.

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Emerson Coat Co. v. Becker Cloak Co.

17 Misc. 2d 878, 186 N.Y.S.2d 955, 1959 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3659

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedMay 21, 1959

StatusPublished

This text of 17 Misc. 2d 878 (Emerson Coat Co. v. Becker Cloak Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Emerson Coat Co. v. Becker Cloak Co., 17 Misc. 2d 878, 186 N.Y.S.2d 955, 1959 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3659 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1959).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The finding in favor of the defendant Becker Cloak Company on disputed testimony may not be disturbed. There was, however, no proof of the cause of the water overflow, or of notice, actual or constructive, to the landlord-owner of any condition for which it could he held liable. In the absence of such proof there is no basis for recovery. (Hirsch v. Radt, 228 N. Y. 100; De Clara v. Barber S. S. Lines, 309 N. Y. 620, 630; Buria v. Rosedale Eng. Corp., 7 A D 2d 486.)

On appeal of defendant Bee-Bee Holding Corp., judgment should be reversed, with costs, and complaint dismissed, with costs.

On appeal of plaintiff, judgment should be affirmed, without costs.

Concur — Hofstadtbr, J. P., Hecht and Aurelio, JJ.

Judgment reversed, etc.

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