Levine v. Bowery Savings Bank

New York Court of Appeals

Levine v. Bowery Savings Bank

28 N.E.2d 930, 283 N.Y. 497, 1940 N.Y. LEXIS 898

DecidedJuly 24, 1940

StatusPublished

This text of 28 N.E.2d 930 (Levine v. Bowery Savings Bank) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Levine v. Bowery Savings Bank, 28 N.E.2d 930, 283 N.Y. 497, 1940 N.Y. LEXIS 898 (N.Y. 1940).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Plaintiff’s evidence was sufficient to present a question of fact whether, upon accompanying his fellow-employee back to their place of employment in defendant’s building on the night of the accident after regular working hours, the plaintiff entered the building as a business invitee or a mere licensee. If it is found that he was present in the building as a business invitee, the further question of fact is presented, did the injuries sustained by plaintiff, when he attempted to leave the building by means of a fire escape in the exigency of having doors and elevators closed and made unavailable to him as means of egress, result from a breach of legal duty owed to him by the defendant.'

The judgments should be reversed and a new trial granted, with costs to abide the event.

Lehman, Ch. J., Loughran, ’ Finch, Rippey, Sears, Lewis and Conway, JJ., concur. /

Judgments reversed, etc,

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

Per Curiam.

Plaintiff’s evidence was sufficient to present a question of fact whether, upon accompanying his fellow-employee back to their place of employment in defendant’s building on the night of the accident after regular working hours, the plaintiff entered the building as a business invitee or a mere licensee. If it is found that he was present in the building as a business invitee, the further question of fact is presented, did the injuries sustained by plaintiff, when he attempted to leave the building by means of a fire escape in the exigency of having doors and elevators closed and made unavailable to him as means of egress, result from a breach of legal duty owed to him by the defendant.'

The judgments should be reversed and a new trial granted, with costs to abide the event.

Lehman, Ch. J., Loughran, ’ Finch, Rippey, Sears, Lewis and Conway, JJ., concur. /

Judgments reversed, etc,

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

28 N.E.2d 930, 283 N.Y. 497, 1940 N.Y. LEXIS 898, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/levine-v-bowery-savings-bank-ny-1940.