Platnick v. Feldman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Platnick v. Feldman

285 A.D. 1086, 140 N.Y.S.2d 30, 1955 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6738

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

DecidedApril 25, 1955

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 285 A.D. 1086 (Platnick v. Feldman) 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

Platnick v. Feldman, 285 A.D. 1086, 140 N.Y.S.2d 30, 1955 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6738 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1955).

Pincite

Opinion

Plaintiff, a photographer, was employed to take some pictures of a beam of a building adjoining that owned by the testate of defendant Pfeiffer and leased to defendants Feldman. Plaintiff could obtain the desired picture from the roof of defendants’ building. He obtained permission from defendants to go to the roof and, while there, fell through a glass skylight. In this action to recover damages for the injuries sustained, the complaint was dismissed at the close of plaintiff’s case. Judgment dismissing the complaint unanimously affirmed, with costs. Plaintiff was a licensee. (Vaughan v. Transit Development Co., 222 N. Y. 79, 82.) To a licensee the owner of the premises owes no duty to exercise care that the premises are safe, for the licensee in entering by permission takes the risk of their condition. (Barrett v. Brooklyn Heights B. B. Co., 188 App. Div. 109, 111, affd. 231 N. Y. 605.) Nor were defendants under a duty to warn plaintiff of the allegedly dangerous condition of the roof. (Vaughan V. Transit Development Co., supra.) In the case at bar, the skylight was not a trap, but was visible, apparent, and unconcealed. (Fox v. Warner-Quinlan Asphalt Go., 204 N. Y. 240.) The proof was insufficient to make out a cause of action. (Doran v. Electrical Installation Co., 326 Mass. 523.) Present — Nolan, P. J., Schmidt, Beldock, Murphy and Ughetta, JJ.

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

Plaintiff, a photographer, was employed to take some pictures of a beam of a building adjoining that owned by the testate of defendant Pfeiffer and leased to defendants Feldman. Plaintiff could obtain the desired picture from the roof of defendants’ building. He obtained permission from defendants to go to the roof and, while there, fell through a glass skylight. In this action to recover damages for the injuries sustained, the complaint was dismissed at the close of plaintiff’s case. Judgment dismissing the complaint unanimously affirmed, with costs. Plaintiff was a licensee. (Vaughan v. Transit Development Co., 222 N. Y. 79, 82.) To a licensee the owner of the premises owes no duty to exercise care that the premises are safe, for the licensee in entering by permission takes the risk of their condition. (Barrett v. Brooklyn Heights B. B. Co., 188 App. Div. 109, 111, affd. 231 N. Y. 605.) Nor were defendants under a duty to warn plaintiff of the allegedly dangerous condition of the roof. (Vaughan V. Transit Development Co., supra.) In the case at bar, the skylight was not a trap, but was visible, apparent, and unconcealed. (Fox v. Warner-Quinlan Asphalt Go., 204 N. Y. 240.) The proof was insufficient to make out a cause of action. (Doran v. Electrical Installation Co., 326 Mass. 523.) Present — Nolan, P. J., Schmidt, Beldock, Murphy and Ughetta, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

285 A.D. 1086, 140 N.Y.S.2d 30, 1955 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6738, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/platnick-v-feldman-nyappdiv-1955.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack