Summary
In Security Mut. Ins. Co. v Airport Parking Co. of Amer. (68 Misc.2d 628, supra) the same facts are found as Makower v Kinney System (65 Misc.2d 808; supra) and Ellish v Airport Parking Co. of Amer. (66 Misc.2d 470, revd 69 Misc.2d 837, affd 42 A.D.2d 174, supra).
Summary of this case from Garlock v. Multiple ParkingOpinion
December 20, 1971
Appeal from the Civil Court of the City of New York, County of Bronx.
Robert Swaybill for appellant.
Tropp, Goldfinger Berson ( I. Sidney Worthman of counsel), for respondent.
Upon a stipulation of facts the court below, determining that a bailment was created when the plaintiff's subrogor left his automobile parked in a lot operated by defendant in the Kennedy International Airport, gave judgment for plaintiff in the sum of $4,293.81. In a similar case involving parking in the same airport we found that what was acquired was "a mere license or privilege to park its car" ( Greene Steel Wire Co. v. Meyers Bros., 44 Misc.2d 646, 647).
Even putting aside our duty under stare decisis to follow this case, there is presented no cogent reason for departing from it, as urged by respondent. It appears to reflect the majority view in this country (see Automobiles — Parking Lot Liability, 7 ALR 3d 927, 934, 937, et seq.; and, also, 20 Syracuse L.R. 382) and has been cited with approval in another jurisdiction (see Wall v. Airport Parking Co. of Chicago, 88 Ill. App.2d 108, affd. 41 Ill.2d 506).
The judgment should be reversed, with $30 costs, and judgment directed for defendant dismissing the complaint.
Upon the stipulated facts I concur in the result reached by my brethren. Under somewhat different facts, affirmance might be mandated (see Osborn v. Cline, 263 N.Y. 434; Dunham v. City of New York, 264 N.Y. 732 ; Galowitz v. Magner, 208 App. Div. 6; see, also, Continental Ins. Co. v. Meyers Bros. Operations, 56 Misc.2d 435, 437-438).
LUPIANO and QUINN, JJ., concur in Per Curiam opinion; MARKOWITZ, J., concurs, in separate memorandum.
Judgment reversed, etc.