Since there was no attempt to prove a bailment, any recovery must be had on a theory of negligence. We are not persuaded that the failure to detect the theft in itself constituted negligence, recovery in similar cases having been disallowed, whether the theory be negligence or bailment, in view of, inter alia, the common understanding of patrons as to the risk of theft under the circumstances and the impracticability of placing a duty on the management of the restaurant to police the premises against such thefts (Wielar v Silver Std., 263 App. Div. 521; Apfel v Whyte's, Inc., 110 Misc. 670). Nevertheless, we affirm, since the statement by the restaurant manager, which was properly admitted as an admission against interest, permitted the jury to find that incidents of theft occurred with such frequency on the premises as to impose a duty on defendant to warn patrons of the risk in hanging their coats unattended. We have considered the remaining arguments, including those directed at various trial rulings, and find them to be without merit.