Kahaner v. Acme Safe Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kahaner v. Acme Safe Co.

75 A.D.2d 636, 427 N.Y.S.2d 445, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11100

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

DecidedApril 28, 1980

StatusPublished

This text of 75 A.D.2d 636 (Kahaner v. Acme Safe Co.) 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

Kahaner v. Acme Safe Co., 75 A.D.2d 636, 427 N.Y.S.2d 445, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11100 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

In consolidated actions to recover damages for property loss, defendant appeals from an order and interlocutory judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, entered May 8, 1979, which, inter alia, is in favor of plaintiffs, after a jury trial limited to the issue of liability only. Order and interlocutory judgment affirmed, with costs. In this action, which involves the theft of customers’ lists from the appellant, Acme Safe Company, Inc., and the subsequent burglaries of respondents’ homes, foreseeability is indicated by Acme’s notice to its commercial customers of the burglary of its premises and arranging to change the combinations on their safes. However, appellant, even after it learned that residences were being burglarized, failed to take the same precautions with respect to its residential customers. Hopkins, J. P., Lazer, Gibbons and Gulotta, JJ., concur.

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

In consolidated actions to recover damages for property loss, defendant appeals from an order and interlocutory judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, entered May 8, 1979, which, inter alia, is in favor of plaintiffs, after a jury trial limited to the issue of liability only. Order and interlocutory judgment affirmed, with costs. In this action, which involves the theft of customers’ lists from the appellant, Acme Safe Company, Inc., and the subsequent burglaries of respondents’ homes, foreseeability is indicated by Acme’s notice to its commercial customers of the burglary of its premises and arranging to change the combinations on their safes. However, appellant, even after it learned that residences were being burglarized, failed to take the same precautions with respect to its residential customers. Hopkins, J. P., Lazer, Gibbons and Gulotta, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

75 A.D.2d 636, 427 N.Y.S.2d 445, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11100, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kahaner-v-acme-safe-co-nyappdiv-1980.