Heimlich Bros. v. Bobbie Trimmings, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Heimlich Bros. v. Bobbie Trimmings, Inc.

10 A.D.2d 623, 196 N.Y.S.2d 759, 1960 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11632

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedFebruary 23, 1960

StatusPublished

This text of 10 A.D.2d 623 (Heimlich Bros. v. Bobbie Trimmings, Inc.) 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

Heimlich Bros. v. Bobbie Trimmings, Inc., 10 A.D.2d 623, 196 N.Y.S.2d 759, 1960 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11632 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1960).

Pincite

Opinion

Determination of the Appellate Term aErming the judgment of the City Court which dismissed the complaint is reversed, on the law and on the facts, the judgment vacated, and a new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide the event. The proof establishes that a fire broke out in the premises occupied [624]*624by and in the exclusive control of the defendant or its agents and servants. It is claimed that the fire was caused by a steam iron. The fire set off an automatic sprinkler which caused water to seep through to the premises occupied by the plaintiff on the floor below. The fire and the resulting water damage occurred under circumstances that justify an inference of negligence on the part of the defendant. (Parashakis v. 621 Bldg. Corp., 281 App. Div. 675; Budrow v. Grand Union Co., 302 N. Y. 804, 806; Betzag v. Gulf Oil Corp., 298 N. Y. 358, 364; Swain v. Gianone, 282 App. Div. 966.) Accordingly, the complaint should not have been dismissed, and, in the interests of justice, a new trial should be had. Since there must be a new trial, it is appropriate to note that the proof of damages, if any, should be sufficiently established. Concur — Rabin, J. P., M. M. Prank, Valente, McNally and Stevens, JJ.

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

Determination of the Appellate Term aErming the judgment of the City Court which dismissed the complaint is reversed, on the law and on the facts, the judgment vacated, and a new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide the event. The proof establishes that a fire broke out in the premises occupied [624]*624by and in the exclusive control of the defendant or its agents and servants. It is claimed that the fire was caused by a steam iron. The fire set off an automatic sprinkler which caused water to seep through to the premises occupied by the plaintiff on the floor below. The fire and the resulting water damage occurred under circumstances that justify an inference of negligence on the part of the defendant. (Parashakis v. 621 Bldg. Corp., 281 App. Div. 675; Budrow v. Grand Union Co., 302 N. Y. 804, 806; Betzag v. Gulf Oil Corp., 298 N. Y. 358, 364; Swain v. Gianone, 282 App. Div. 966.) Accordingly, the complaint should not have been dismissed, and, in the interests of justice, a new trial should be had. Since there must be a new trial, it is appropriate to note that the proof of damages, if any, should be sufficiently established. Concur — Rabin, J. P., M. M. Prank, Valente, McNally and Stevens, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

10 A.D.2d 623, 196 N.Y.S.2d 759, 1960 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11632, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/heimlich-bros-v-bobbie-trimmings-inc-nyappdiv-1960.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack