Case ID: misc2d_49/html/0953-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Per Curiam.\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Uneeda Home Appliances, Inc., Respondent, v. Long Island Rail Road Company, Appellant, et al., Defendant.
    Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Department,
    March 9, 1966.
    
      George M. Onken and Donald E. Lampson for appellant. Leon Brickman for respondent.
   Per Curiam.

Plaintiff may not recover for damages to its goods in the absence of a showing that they were delivered to defendant carrier in a good condition (Orunstein v. New York Cent. R. R. Co., 179 App. Div. 465). This burden is not met by a recital in the bill of lading that the goods were received in apparent good order (Miller v. Hannibal & St. Joseph R. R. Co., 90 N. Y. 430; Jean, Garrison & Co. v. Flagg, 45 Misc. 421). In the interests of justice plaintiff should be afforded an opportunity to develop its proof on this aspect of the case.

The judgment should be unanimously reversed and a new trial ordered, with $30 costs to defendant to abide the event.

Brown, McDonald and Schwartzwald, JJ., concur.

Judgment reversed, etc.