EICHELBAUM v. DOUGLAS ELLIMAN LLC (2008)

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Debra A. James, J.), entered June 11, 2007, which granted defendants' respective motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

 Plaintiff failed to raise an issue of fact responsive to defendants real estate brokers' prima facie showing that their only connection to the house in which plaintiff fell was to show it to prospective buyers, such as plaintiff, and that they therefore owed plaintiff no duty to make the house safe (see Pirie v. Krasinski, 18 A.D.3d 848, 850, 796 N.Y.S.2d 671 [2005], Meyer v. Tyner, 273 A.D.2d 364, 365, 709 N.Y.S.2d 618 [2000] ).   Defendants owners were properly granted summary judgment in the absence of evidence-responsive to their prima facie showing that the pre-finished shiny wood floor had never been waxed or polished after installation and was mopped with only a small amount of water-that the floor was slippery for reasons other than its inherent smoothness (see Murphy v. Conner, 84 N.Y.2d 969, 971-972, 622 N.Y.S.2d 494, 646 N.E.2d 796 [1994] ).   For the same reason it does not avail plaintiff that defendants may have had notice of the inherent slippery nature of the floor, i.e., any danger due to smoothness would have been as apparent to her as to defendants (see DeMartini v. Trump 767 5th Ave., LLC, 41 A.D.3d 181, 182, 837 N.Y.S.2d 137 [2007] ), it does not avail plaintiff to argue that defendants created or exacerbated the danger by requesting her to remove her shoes on entering the house.