From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Guenzberg v. Heyman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jan 28, 1958
5 A.D.2d 766 (N.Y. App. Div. 1958)

Summary

In Guenzberg, this Court found that while the trial court erroneously found plaintiff to be an invitee, the judgment could be upheld, even though she was only a licensee.

Summary of this case from Rugieri v. Bannister

Opinion

January 28, 1958


Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs of the appeal to the respondents. While the Trial Judge erroneously found that the plaintiff was an invitee, the evidence supports a judgment in plaintiff's favor even though she was only a licensee. Defendant's liability was established by his affirmative act in carelessly directing plaintiff to the powder room. Having undertaken to give a direction to a person unfamiliar with the surroundings, defendant was under a duty to give specific instructions, particularly in view of the physical arrangement of the premises and the many doors in the alcove to which he pointed. Defendant, chargeable with the knowledge that a misunderstanding of his direction would lead plaintiff to a place of danger, failed to warn plaintiff of the danger of opening the door to the cellar — a danger which plaintiff was unlikely to discover for herself.

Concur — Rabin, J.P., Frank, Valente, McNally and Bergan, JJ.


Summaries of

Guenzberg v. Heyman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jan 28, 1958
5 A.D.2d 766 (N.Y. App. Div. 1958)

In Guenzberg, this Court found that while the trial court erroneously found plaintiff to be an invitee, the judgment could be upheld, even though she was only a licensee.

Summary of this case from Rugieri v. Bannister
Case details for

Guenzberg v. Heyman

Case Details

Full title:ANN GUENZBERG et al., Respondents, v. JOHN M. HEYMAN, Appellant

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Jan 28, 1958

Citations

5 A.D.2d 766 (N.Y. App. Div. 1958)

Citing Cases

Rugieri v. Bannister

In accordance with our strong preference for resolving cases on their merits, we reinstate the action against…

Koval v. Markley

We reject plaintiff's further contention that defendant failed to instruct her in a proper manner regarding…