PURCELL v. CSB (2008)

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Emily Jane Goodman, J.), entered on or about June 12, 2008, which, in an action for personal injuries allegedly caused by a slippery floor, denied the motion of defendant-appellant, a janitorial services contractor, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against it, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the motion granted and the complaint dismissed.   The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of defendant York Building Maintenance Corp. dismissing the complaint as against it.

Plaintiff's deposition testimony that the floor on which she slipped was “very shiny” and “over waxed,” without more, does not support an inference of negligent waxing or polishing (see Davies v. City of New York, 39 A.D.3d 390, 836 N.Y.S.2d 16 [2007], lv. denied 9 N.Y.3d 808, 844 N.Y.S.2d 174, 875 N.E.2d 893).   Nor may such inference be made on the basis of plaintiff's testimony that a carpet and a yellow “caution” or “slippery” sign were placed on the floor shortly after her fall (see Fernandez v. Higdon El. Co., 220 A.D.2d 293, 632 N.Y.S.2d 546 [1995] ).   We have considered plaintiff's other evidence and arguments and find them unavailing.