Case Name: Estate of Peter Canale et al., Respondents, v. Binghamton Amusement Co., Inc., et al., Appellants, and Columbia Gas of New York, Inc., Respondent, et al., Defendants; Susan O. Trozze, Respondent, v. Binghamton Enterprise, Inc., et al., Appellants, and Columbia Gas of New York, Inc., Respondent, et al., Defendants
Court: New York Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1975-10-23
Citations: 37 N.Y.2d 875
Docket Number: 
Parties: Estate of Peter Canale et al., Respondents, v Binghamton Amusement Co., Inc., et al., Appellants, and Columbia Gas of New York, Inc., Respondent, et al., Defendants. Susan O. Trozze, Respondent, v Binghamton Enterprise, Inc., et al., Appellants, and Columbia Gas of New York, Inc., Respondent, et al., Defendants.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Reports
Volume: 37
Pages: 875–877

Head Matter:
Estate of Peter Canale et al., Respondents, v Binghamton Amusement Co., Inc., et al., Appellants, and Columbia Gas of New York, Inc., Respondent, et al., Defendants. Susan O. Trozze, Respondent, v Binghamton Enterprise, Inc., et al., Appellants, and Columbia Gas of New York, Inc., Respondent, et al., Defendants.
Argued September 10, 1975;
decided October 23, 1975
Maurice P. O’Brien for Binghamton Amusement Co., Inc., and another, appellants.
Thomas F. O’Connor for Binghamton Enterprise, Inc., appellant.
Philip J. Kramer for Estate of Peter Canale and another, plaintiffs-respondents.
John F. Artman for Susan O. Trozze, plaintiff-respondent.
John M. Keeler for Columbia Gas of New York, Inc., defendant-respqndent.

Opinion:
Memorandum. The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs. Given this court's restricted scope of review, when issues of fact have been resolved by affirmance at the Appellate Division, the findings are conclusive on this court, if there is evidence to support them (see, generally, Cohen and Karger, Powers of the New York Court of Appeals, pp 453-455). True, the proof of the cause of the fire rested on slender inference, and the proof of value of the Canale property was hardly inspiring of confidence, nevertheless there was some evidence on each issue, even if only barely enough, to withstand review by this court.