Hoffman v. Raconello

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hoffman v. Raconello

9 A.D.2d 766, 192 N.Y.S.2d 463, 1959 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6369

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

DecidedNovember 2, 1959

StatusPublished

This text of 9 A.D.2d 766 (Hoffman v. Raconello) 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

Hoffman v. Raconello, 9 A.D.2d 766, 192 N.Y.S.2d 463, 1959 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6369 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1959).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the appeal is from a judgment entered on a dismissal of the complaint at the close of appellant’s case, on the ground that appellant was at best a mere licensee on the premises. Respondent was engaged in laying blacktop on a parking lot owned by a third person. Appellant was injured when he fell on the parking lot while running from an explosion. The explosion occurred in a pot in which a fire was being tended by respondent's employee in connection with that work. Judgment affirmed, with costs. No opinion. Wenzel, Acting P. J., Beldoek, Murphy and Hallinan, JJ., concur; Kleinfeld, J., dissents and votes to reverse the judgment and to grant a new trial, with the following memorandum: Under all the circumstances a question of fact was presented as to respondent’s negligence. The distinction between a licensee and an invitee is so nebulous and unreal that it must be discarded. The only issue is whether there was negligence under all the prevailing circumstances. (Cf. Kermarec v. Compagnie Generale, 358 U. S. 625, 630, 631, and cases there cited.)

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

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the appeal is from a judgment entered on a dismissal of the complaint at the close of appellant’s case, on the ground that appellant was at best a mere licensee on the premises. Respondent was engaged in laying blacktop on a parking lot owned by a third person. Appellant was injured when he fell on the parking lot while running from an explosion. The explosion occurred in a pot in which a fire was being tended by respondent's employee in connection with that work. Judgment affirmed, with costs. No opinion. Wenzel, Acting P. J., Beldoek, Murphy and Hallinan, JJ., concur; Kleinfeld, J., dissents and votes to reverse the judgment and to grant a new trial, with the following memorandum: Under all the circumstances a question of fact was presented as to respondent’s negligence. The distinction between a licensee and an invitee is so nebulous and unreal that it must be discarded. The only issue is whether there was negligence under all the prevailing circumstances. (Cf. Kermarec v. Compagnie Generale, 358 U. S. 625, 630, 631, and cases there cited.)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

9 A.D.2d 766, 192 N.Y.S.2d 463, 1959 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6369, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hoffman-v-raconello-nyappdiv-1959.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack