Legal Opinion · Dissent
Globe Jewelry, Inc. v. Pennsylvania Insurance
Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York
Decided January 15, 1973Published
1DissentMabkowitz, J.
The Trial Judge made two basic factual findings, substantiated by the record, which are dispositive and call for affirmance of the judgment.
The first finding is that there was no breach of the warranty to keep a detailed stock record: ‘ ‘ The plaintiff introduced evidence showing that it did keep a card inventory record of its jewelry. In good faith, it could have affirmatively answered that it kept a detailed stock record ’ ’. As called for by the authorities, the Trial Judge liberally construed what constitutes bookkeeping methods for small manufacturers and small retail shops (Hartol.…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Hartol Products Corp. v. Prudential Insurance Co. of AmericaNew York Court of Appeals · 1943
- Mord v. New York Indemnity Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1926
- Muller v. Sun Indemnity Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1951
- Garten v. General Accident, Fire & Life Assurance Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1923
- Licht v. New York Indemnity Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1928
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.