Levine v. Bowery Savings Bank

28 N.E.2d 930, 283 N.Y. 497, 1940 N.Y. LEXIS 898
New York Court of Appeals·Decided July 24, 1940·Published

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

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

28 N.E.2d 930 (Levine v. Bowery Savings Bank) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.