Honig v. Riley
| Decision Date | 31 December 1926 |
| Citation | 244 N.Y. 105,155 N.E. 65 |
| Parties | HONIG v. RILEY. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Action by Lillian Honig against Benjamin C. Riley. From a judgment of the Appellate Division (217 App. Div. 570, 216 N. Y. S. 158) affirming by a divided court the determination of the Appellate Term (126 Misc. Rep. 320, 213 N. Y. S. 380) affirming a judgment of the Municipal Court of the city of New York (124 Misc. Rep. 809, 209 N. Y. S. 233), entered upon a verdict of the jury in favor of plaintiff, defendant appeals by permission.
Judgment of the Appellate Division and the determination of the Appellate Term reversed, and judgment of the Municipal Court modified and, as so modified, affirmed.
See, also, 217 App. Div. 794, 216 N. Y. S. 847.
Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First department.
Ralph O. L. Fay, David Klein and Henry Fluegelman, all of New York City, for appellant.
Aaron Honig and Jacob J. Lazaroe, both of New York City, for respondent.
Charles J. Campbell, of New York, City, for New York State Hotel Ass'n, intervener.
Plaintiff, visiting defendant's restaurant on New Year's Eve, 1925, left a fur coat of the value of $850 at the checkroom, receiving the usual check therefor. She was not questioned as to the value, and did not state it. The court charged the jury in effect that the plaintiff should have a verdict for the full value of the coat if the jury believed that the defendant had been negligent in caring for it. The question is whether liability has been limited by statute.
The case involves the construction of section 201 of the General Business Law (Cons. Laws, c. 20), Laws of 1924, c. 506. The whole section must be quoted, but for convenience the part directly applicable is printed in italics:
‘No hotel keeper except as provided in the foregoing section shall be liable for damage to or loss of wearing apparel or other personal property in the room or rooms assigned to a guest for any sum exceeding the sum of five hundred dollars, unless it shall appear that such loss occurred through the fault or negligence of such keeper, nor shall he be liable in any sum exceeding the sum of one hundred dollars for the loss of or damage to any such property when delivered to such keeper for storage or safekeeping in the store-room, baggage room or other place elsewhere than in the room or rooms assigned to such guest, unless at the time of delivering the same for storage or safekeeping such value in excess of one hundred dollars shall be stated and a written receipt, stating such value, shall be issued by such keeper, but in no event shall such keeper be liable beyond five hundred dollars, unless it shall appear that such loss occurred through his fault or negligence, and such keeper may make a reasonable charge for storing or keeping such property, nor shall he be liable for the loss of or damage to any merchandise samples or merchandise for sale, unless the guest shall have given such keeper prior written notice of having the same in his possession, together with the value thereof, the receipt of which notice the hotel keeper shall acknowledge in writing over the signature of himself or his agent, but in no event shall such keeper be liable beyond five hundred dollars, unless it shall appear that such loss or damage occurred through his fault or negligence; as to property deposited by quests or patrons in the parcel or check room of any hotel or restaurant, the delivery of which is evidenced by a check or receipt therefor and for which no fee or charge is exacted, the proprietor shall not be liable beyond seventy-five dollars, unless such value in excess of seventy-five dollars shall be stated upon delivery and a written receipt, stating such value, shall be issued, but he shall in no event be liable beyond one hundred dollars, unless such loss occurs through his fault or negligence.’
The defendant maintains that where property is deposited in a parcel or check room without statement of value or delivery of the prescribed receipt, there is a limit of liability to $75 for loss from any cause. Disclosure of the value, if followed by a receipt, will extend liability for fault or negligence up to the limit of the value stated, though even then the liability, if any, as insurer will be $100 and no more. The plaintiff on her side maintains, and the courts below have held, that the exemption from liability in excess of $75 where the value is not disclosed is not to be read as a limitation of liability for loss from any cause, but is confined to losses not due to the fault or negligence of the proprietor.
[1][2] We think the defendant's construction is the true one, however clumsy and inartificial may be the phrasing of the statute. A limitation of liability affecting merely the measure...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Berkey v. Third Ave. Ry. Co.
-
Weinberg v. D-M Restaurant Corp.
...dollars, unless such loss occurs through his fault or negligence." In a case strikingly similar to the instant case, Honig v. Riley, 244 N.Y. 105, 155 N.E. 65, that language was construed by this court. Plaintiff Honig sought to recover the value of the fur coat she left at the checkroom of......
-
Bhattal v. Grand Hyatt-New York, 82 Civ. 7803-CLB.
...297 (Sup.Ct., N.Y.Co., 1969); Reichman v. Compagnie Generale Transatlantique, 290 N.Y. 344, 49 N.E.2d 474 (1943); Honig v. Riley, 244 N.Y. 105, 155 N.E. 65 (1926); Adler v. Savoy Plaza, Inc., 279 App. Div. 110, 108 N.Y.S.2d 80 (1st Dept.1951); DePaemelaere v. Davis, 77 Misc.2d 1, 351 N.Y.S.......
-
Pfennig v. Roosevelt Hotel
... ... Counsel for plaintiff has, we think, ... misinterpreted certain language in which the court seeks to ... explain an earlier decision. Honig v. Riley, 244 N.Y. 105, ... 155 N.E. 65. The court merely said that this earlier decision ... had been based on another statute which had expressly ... ...