Sid Birzon, Inc. v. Pinkerton's Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sid Birzon, Inc. v. Pinkerton's Inc.

86 A.D.2d 957, 450 N.Y.S.2d 445, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15650

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

DecidedFebruary 26, 1982

StatusPublished

This text of 86 A.D.2d 957 (Sid Birzon, Inc. v. Pinkerton's 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

Sid Birzon, Inc. v. Pinkerton's Inc., 86 A.D.2d 957, 450 N.Y.S.2d 445, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15650 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

Order unanimously modified and, as modified, affirmed, without costs, in accordance with the following memorandum: Special Term properly denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability. The court erred, however, in determining, as a matter of law, “that the storage of plaintiff’s merchandise with defendant at the time of plaintiff’s loss, constitutes a bailment for the mutual benefit of both parties and not a gratuitous bailment.” The record reveals unresolved questions which preclude a summary determination of the bailment issue. (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Doyle, J. — summary judgment.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Simons, Doerr, Moule and Schnepp, JJ.

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

Order unanimously modified and, as modified, affirmed, without costs, in accordance with the following memorandum: Special Term properly denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability. The court erred, however, in determining, as a matter of law, “that the storage of plaintiff’s merchandise with defendant at the time of plaintiff’s loss, constitutes a bailment for the mutual benefit of both parties and not a gratuitous bailment.” The record reveals unresolved questions which preclude a summary determination of the bailment issue. (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Doyle, J. — summary judgment.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Simons, Doerr, Moule and Schnepp, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

86 A.D.2d 957, 450 N.Y.S.2d 445, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15650, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sid-birzon-inc-v-pinkertons-inc-nyappdiv-1982.