Kennedy v. Bowman Biltmore Hotel Corp.

157 Misc. 416, 283 N.Y.S. 900, 1935 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1600
Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York·Decided November 8, 1935·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The watch involved while ornamented with diamonds was primarily an article of daily use and not a jewel, ornament or precious stone within the meaning of section 200 of the General Business Law. (See Ramaley v. Leland, 43 N. Y. 539; Briggs v. Todd, 28 Misc. 208; Jones v. Hotel Latham Co., 62 id. 620.) Nor would the fact that a broken clasp made it unsafe to wear the watch on the day of its loss change the nature of the article. (Briggs v. Todd, supra.) The question of ownership was not raised below.

Judgment reversed, with thirty dollars costs, and judgment directed for plaintiff in the amount of $500 with interest and costs.

All concur. Present — Lydon, Callahan and Shientag, JJ.

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

Kennedy v. Bowman Biltmore Hotel Corp., 157 Misc. 416, 283 N.Y.S. 900, 1935 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1600 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1935).

157 Misc. 416 (Kennedy v. Bowman Biltmore Hotel Corp.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Brewer v. Roosevelt Motor Lodge
295 A.2d 647 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1972)
Federal Insurance v. Waldorf-Astoria Hotel
60 Misc. 2d 996 (Civil Court of the City of New York, 1969)
Leon v. Kitchen Bros. Hotel Co.
277 N.W. 823 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1938)