Guenzberg v. Heyman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Guenzberg v. Heyman

5 A.D.2d 766, 169 N.Y.S.2d 770, 1958 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7127

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJanuary 28, 1958

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 5 A.D.2d 766 (Guenzberg v. Heyman) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Guenzberg v. Heyman, 5 A.D.2d 766, 169 N.Y.S.2d 770, 1958 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7127 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1958).

Pincite

Opinion

— Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs of the appeal to the respondents. While the Trial Judge erroneously found that the plaintiff was an invitee, the evidence supports a judgment in plaintiff’s favor even though she was only a licensee. Defendant’s liability was established by his affirmative act in carelessly directing plaintiff to the powder room. Having undertaken to give a direction to a person unfamiliar with the surroundings, defendant was under a duty to give specific instructions, particularly in view of the physical arrangement of the premises and the many doors in the alcove to which he pointed. Defendant, chargeable with the knowledge that a misunderstanding of his direction would lead plaintiff to a place of danger, failed to warn plaintiff of the danger of opening the door to the cellar — a danger which plaintiff was unlikely to discover for herself.

Concur — Rabin, J. P., Frank, Valente, McNally and Bergan, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

— Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs of the appeal to the respondents. While the Trial Judge erroneously found that the plaintiff was an invitee, the evidence supports a judgment in plaintiff’s favor even though she was only a licensee. Defendant’s liability was established by his affirmative act in carelessly directing plaintiff to the powder room. Having undertaken to give a direction to a person unfamiliar with the surroundings, defendant was under a duty to give specific instructions, particularly in view of the physical arrangement of the premises and the many doors in the alcove to which he pointed. Defendant, chargeable with the knowledge that a misunderstanding of his direction would lead plaintiff to a place of danger, failed to warn plaintiff of the danger of opening the door to the cellar — a danger which plaintiff was unlikely to discover for herself.

Concur — Rabin, J. P., Frank, Valente, McNally and Bergan, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

5 A.D.2d 766, 169 N.Y.S.2d 770, 1958 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7127, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/guenzberg-v-heyman-nyappdiv-1958.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack