From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

KLOTZ v. EL MOROCCO INT

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department
Dec 6, 1968
63 Misc. 2d 489 (N.Y. App. Term 1968)

Opinion

December 6, 1968

Appeal from the Civil Court of the City of New York, County of New York, ARNOLD L. FEIN, J.

Anthony G. Di Falco for appellant.

Herman Brothers for respondent.


The record clearly establishes the defendant exercised that degree of ordinary care required of a bailee for mutual benefit. Consequently, the subsequent loss by defendant of the vehicle here involved was not occasioned by any negligence on the part of the defendant bailee.

The judgment should be reversed, with $30 costs, and judgment directed for defendant, with costs.

Concur — STREIT, GOLD and HOFSTADTER, JJ.

Judgment reversed, etc.


Summaries of

KLOTZ v. EL MOROCCO INT

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department
Dec 6, 1968
63 Misc. 2d 489 (N.Y. App. Term 1968)
Case details for

KLOTZ v. EL MOROCCO INT

Case Details

Full title:JOSEPH KLOTZ, Respondent, v. EL MOROCCO INTERNATIONAL, LTD., Appellant, et…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department

Date published: Dec 6, 1968

Citations

63 Misc. 2d 489 (N.Y. App. Term 1968)
312 N.Y.S.2d 60

Citing Cases

Weingart v. Directoire Rest

Even if such person did perform these services for several restaurants, it does not automatically follow that…