Zaritsky v. Thrifty 381 Stores, Inc.

67 Misc. 2d 148, 324 N.Y.S.2d 476, 1971 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1562
Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York·Decided June 7, 1971·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The owner of a cleaning store which merely collects clothing for cleaning elsewhere and contains no highly flammable material has no duty, in the absence of statute, to install a sprinkler or other fire alarm system. It was error to predicate a finding of negligence on failure to install such apparatus. Since a bailee for mutual benefit is not an insurer and no liability exists for loss of property by him as a result of fire where negligence has not been established (Hale v. Platek, 182 N. Y. S. 750; Equitable Paper Bag Co. v. Long Is. R. R. Co., 172 Misc. 934; DeOnis v. Schmeltzer, 71 N. Y. S. 2d 384) substantial justice ‘ ‘ according to the rules of substantive law ’ ’ (CCA, § 1804) requires reversal.

The judgments should be reversed, without costs and complaints dismissed.

Concur — Lupiano, J. P., Markowitz and Gold, JJ.

Judgments reversed, etc.

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

Zaritsky v. Thrifty 381 Stores, Inc., 67 Misc. 2d 148, 324 N.Y.S.2d 476, 1971 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1562 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1971).

67 Misc. 2d 148 (Zaritsky v. Thrifty 381 Stores, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Singer Co. v. Stott & Davis Motor Express, Inc.
79 A.D.2d 227 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1981)
Peralta v. Port of New York Authority
68 Misc. 2d 302 (Civil Court of the City of New York, 1971)