Guenzberg v. Heyman

5 A.D.2d 766, 169 N.Y.S.2d 770, 1958 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7127
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided January 28, 1958·Published·Cited by 4 cases

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

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).

5 A.D.2d 766 (Guenzberg v. Heyman) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

KOVAL, CATHERINE v. MARKLEY, EDWINA
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012
Koval v. Markley
93 A.D.3d 1171 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
Rugieri v. Bannister
22 A.D.3d 299 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)
Christoforou v. Lown
120 A.D.2d 387 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1986)