From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Davies v. Mitchell

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Apr 24, 2007
39 A.D.3d 390 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)

Opinion

No. 709.

April 24, 2007.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Mary Ann Brigantti-Hughes, J.), entered February 4, 2005, which, insofar as appealed from, denied defendant-appellant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against it, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion granted. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.

White, Fleischner Fino, LLP, New York (Nancy D. Lyness of counsel), for appellant.

Barry Siskin, New York, for respondent.

Before: Andrias, J.P., Marlow, Sullivan, Gonzalez and Kavanagh, JJ.


Plaintiff's claim that appellant created the slippery condition of the floor on which plaintiff slipped by excessive waxing rests only on her observation that the floor was "shiny." Such evidence, without more, does not permit an inference of negligent waxing ( Caran v Hilton Hotels Corp., 299 AD2d 252, lv dismissed 3 NY3d 693).


Summaries of

Davies v. Mitchell

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Apr 24, 2007
39 A.D.3d 390 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)
Case details for

Davies v. Mitchell

Case Details

Full title:ROSE DAVIES, Respondent, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, Defendant, and MARY MITCHELL…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Apr 24, 2007

Citations

39 A.D.3d 390 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)
2007 N.Y. Slip Op. 3563
836 N.Y.S.2d 16

Citing Cases

Purcell v. York Building Maintenance Corp.

Before: Mazzarelli, J.P., Saxe, Catterson, Renwick and Freedman, JJ. Plaintiff's deposition testimony that…

O'Gara v. 101 Park Ave. Assoc.

Notably, it is well established that "the fact that a floor is slippery by reason of its smoothness or…