From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Peters v. Knott Corp.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Department
May 26, 1948
191 Misc. 898 (N.Y. App. Term 1948)

Opinion

May 26, 1948.

Appeal from the City Court, City of New York, County of Queens, CONROY, J.

Max J. Gwertzman for appellant.

William L. Shumate for respondent.


The checking facilities maintained by defendant, as disclosed by this record, did not constitute a checkroom within the meaning of section 201 Gen. Bus. of the General Business Law. Even if it were a checkroom, the evidence presented a question of fact as to whether the notice specified in section 206 had been properly posted by defendant.

The judgment should be unanimously reversed upon the law and new trial granted, with costs to plaintiff to abide the event.

MACCRATE, FENNELLY and COLDEN, JJ., concur.

Judgment reversed, etc.


Summaries of

Peters v. Knott Corp.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Department
May 26, 1948
191 Misc. 898 (N.Y. App. Term 1948)
Case details for

Peters v. Knott Corp.

Case Details

Full title:VIRGINIA F. PETERS, Appellant, v. KNOTT CORP., Respondent

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Department

Date published: May 26, 1948

Citations

191 Misc. 898 (N.Y. App. Term 1948)
82 N.Y.S.2d 650

Citing Cases

Goncalves v. Regent Hotels

Section 200 is an affirmative defense (see Zaldin v Concord Hotel, supra, at p 115; Faucett v Nichols, 64…