Opinion
Argued November 13, 1974
Decided December 20, 1974
Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department, MANUEL W. LEVINE, J.
W. Harvey Mayer for appellants.
Sherwin Rear and Bernard Helfenstein for respondents.
Order reversed, with costs in all courts, and the interlocutory judgment of Supreme Court, Nassau County, reinstated on the dissenting memorandum by Mr. Justice HENRY J. LATHAM at the Appellate Division.
Concur: Chief Judge BREITEL and Judges JASEN, GABRIELLI, JONES and STEVENS. Judge WACHTLER concurs in result in the following opinion. Taking no part: Judge RABIN.
I concur in reversal but not for the reasons adopted by the majority. In my view every defendant, including a property owner, should be held to the standard of reasonable conduct and, as I recently stated in my concurring opinion in Martinez v. Kaufman-Kane Realty Co. ( 34 N.Y.2d 819), I can see no reason for perpetuating exceptions based on the archaic distinction between trespassers, licensees and invitees. Nor can I perceive any benefit in meeting the problem halfway by expanding the exceptions to the exceptions as the majority here, and in Martinez, seeks to do.
With the legal relics out of the case the only issue as I see it is whether the plaintiff was injured because the defendants failed to exercise reasonable care in the management of their property. Considering the evidence, noted in the majority opinion, I believe the jury could properly have found that they did not act reasonably under the circumstances.
Accordingly, I concur in the reversal.
Order reversed, etc.