Majority
Judgment of Appellate Division reversed and case remitted to that court for determination upon the questions of fact raised in that court (Civ. Prac. Act, § 606), with costs to abide the event. There was evidence that plaintiff was a business visitor to whom defendant owed the duty of keeping the premises reasonably safe (Haefeli v. Woodrich Engineering Co., 255 N. Y. 442 , 448), that this duty was breached and that plaintiff was not guilty of contributory negligence (Christensen v. Hannon, 230 N. Y. 205 , 208; Tobin v. Ariel Holding Corp., 291 N. Y. 606 ). No opinion.
Concur: Lottghban, Ch. J., Lewis, Coswat, Desmond, Thacheb, Dye and Finn, JJ.
Cases cited
- Haefeli v. Woodrich Engineering Co. 255 N. Y. 442 at 448 p. 859
- Christensen v. James S. Hannon, Inc. 230 N. Y. 205 at 208 p. 859
- Tobin v. Ariel Holding Corp. 291 N. Y. 606 p. 859