Judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated May 9, 1967, reversed, on the law, and new trial granted, with costs to abide the event. No questions of fact were considered on this appeal. In this negligence action plaintiff testified she was injured while following instructions given by one of the defendants. In our opinion plaintiff made out a prima facie case of defendants' negligence and her own freedom of contributory negligence. While in some instances a social guest who proceeds into darkness may be guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law ( Hudson v. Church of Holy Trinity, 250 N.Y. 513; Rohrbacher v. Gillig, 203 N.Y. 413), where, as at bar, plaintiff gives proof that her injury resulted solely as a consequence of following such instructions in the use of defendants' premises and entry into a dimly illuminated area, the issues of negligence and contributory negligence should both be submitted to the jury to decide ( Guenzberg v. Heyman, 5 A.D.2d 766). Beldock, P.J., Christ, Brennan, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur.