Hirsch v. Hade

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Hirsch v. Hade

62 Misc. 2d 888, 310 N.Y.S.2d 14, 1970 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1962

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedJanuary 21, 1970

StatusPublished

This text of 62 Misc. 2d 888 (Hirsch v. Hade) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hirsch v. Hade, 62 Misc. 2d 888, 310 N.Y.S.2d 14, 1970 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1962 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1970).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

In this action by a guest who tripped over a rug and was injured while leaving defendant’s residence, the trial court in effect held that plaintiff was a social guest as dis[889]*889tinguished from a licensee, and that defendant had a duty to warn him of defects known to defendant and which were neither hidden nor traps. This was error. Plaintiff, as a social guest, was a licensee and defendant’s duty must accord with the established rules governing such relationship (Plotz v. Greene, 13 A D 2d 807, affd. 10 N Y 2d 991; Goldstein v. Board of Educ. of Union Free School Dist. No. 23, Town of Hempstead, 24 A D 2d 1015, affd. 18 N Y 2d 991; Levine v. Barfus, 28 A D 2d 896; Bua v. Fernandez, 21 A D 2d 887, revd. 15 N Y 2d 664). The rights and obligations of the respective parties should be adjudicated on the basis of plaintiff’s status as a licensee (Finkle v. Zimmerman, 26 A D 2d 179).

The judgment should be unanimously reversed, without costs, and a new trial ordered.

Concur — Groat, P. J., Rinaldi and Cone, JJ.

Judgment reversed, etc.

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

Per Curiam.

In this action by a guest who tripped over a rug and was injured while leaving defendant’s residence, the trial court in effect held that plaintiff was a social guest as dis[889]*889tinguished from a licensee, and that defendant had a duty to warn him of defects known to defendant and which were neither hidden nor traps. This was error. Plaintiff, as a social guest, was a licensee and defendant’s duty must accord with the established rules governing such relationship (Plotz v. Greene, 13 A D 2d 807, affd. 10 N Y 2d 991; Goldstein v. Board of Educ. of Union Free School Dist. No. 23, Town of Hempstead, 24 A D 2d 1015, affd. 18 N Y 2d 991; Levine v. Barfus, 28 A D 2d 896; Bua v. Fernandez, 21 A D 2d 887, revd. 15 N Y 2d 664). The rights and obligations of the respective parties should be adjudicated on the basis of plaintiff’s status as a licensee (Finkle v. Zimmerman, 26 A D 2d 179).

The judgment should be unanimously reversed, without costs, and a new trial ordered.

Concur — Groat, P. J., Rinaldi and Cone, JJ.

Judgment reversed, etc.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

62 Misc. 2d 888, 310 N.Y.S.2d 14, 1970 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1962, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hirsch-v-hade-nyappterm-1970.