Davies v. City of New York

39 A.D.3d 390, 836 N.Y.S.2d 16
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided April 24, 2007·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

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.

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 [2002], lv dismissed 3 NY3d 693 [2004]). Concur—Andrias, J.P., Marlow, Sullivan, Gonzalez and Kavanagh, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Davies v. City of New York, 39 A.D.3d 390, 836 N.Y.S.2d 16 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

39 A.D.3d 390 (Davies v. City of New York) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Purcell v. York Building Maintenance Corp.
57 A.D.3d 210 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)