Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Robert ANDERSON, Respondent, v. 35 WEST 23RD STREET CONDOMINIUM, Appellant.
In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Rappaport, J.), dated October 15, 1996, as denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
ORDERED that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.
The plaintiff, while working in his capacity as a mail carrier, allegedly slipped and fell on the floor of the lobby in the defendant's premises. At his examination before trial, the plaintiff testified that the entire floor was covered with a clear cleaning solution or liquid wax, and, although the tiles felt slippery or oily, there was no substance of any thickness on the floor.
The plaintiff has failed to present any evidence demonstrating that the defendant was negligent in its application of wax or polish to the floor, or that it otherwise created a hazardous condition (see, Calabrese v. B.P.O. Elks Lodge # 744, 215 A.D.2d 345, 346, 626 N.Y.S.2d 224; Pizzi v. Bradlee's Div., 172 A.D.2d 504, 567 N.Y.S.2d 852; Silver v. Brodsky, 112 A.D.2d 213, 490 N.Y.S.2d 865).
Furthermore, there is no evidence that the defendant had actual notice of a foreign substance or allegedly hazardous condition prior to the accident, or evidence from which a jury could infer constructive notice (see, Moss v. JNK Capital, 211 A.D.2d 769, 621 N.Y.S.2d 679, affd. 85 N.Y.2d 1005, 631 N.Y.S.2d 280, 655 N.E.2d 393, for reasons stated below; Fasolino v. Charming Stores, 77 N.Y.2d 847, 848, 567 N.Y.S.2d 640, 569 N.E.2d 443; Davis v. Supermarkets Gen. Corp., 205 A.D.2d 730, 613 N.Y.S.2d 701).
Lastly, the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is not applicable to the facts presented in this case (see, Ebanks v. New York City Tr. Auth., 70 N.Y.2d 621, 518 N.Y.S.2d 776, 512 N.E.2d 297; Prame v. Ames Dept. Stores, 176 A.D.2d 1215, 577 N.Y.S.2d 188; La Plante v. State of New York, 31 A.D.2d 570, 294 N.Y.S.2d 763, affd. 28 N.Y.2d 575, 319 N.Y.S.2d 614, 268 N.E.2d 327).
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: June 09, 1997
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)