Lathan v. NCAS Realty Management Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Lathan v. NCAS Realty Management Corp.

240 A.D.2d 474, 658 N.Y.S.2d 436, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6094

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJune 9, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 240 A.D.2d 474 (Lathan v. NCAS Realty Management Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Lathan v. NCAS Realty Management Corp., 240 A.D.2d 474, 658 N.Y.S.2d 436, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6094 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants NCAS Realty Management Corp., Nor-wood A. Campbell, Alex Shapiro, George Bookis, Pierpointe on the Hudson Condominium I, and Board of Managers of Pierpointe on the Hudson Condominium I appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Cowhey, J.), dated May 3, 1996, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against them.'

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion is granted, the complaint is dismissed insofar as asserted against the appellants and the action against the remaining defendants is severed.

The plaintiff alleged that she slipped and fell on the lobby floor on the appellants’ premises, causing her to sustain personal injuries, as a result of the appellants’ negligence in creating a dangerous condition. In her affidavit submitted in [475]*475opposition to the appellants’ motion for summary judgment, the plaintiff averred that a wax buildup caused her to slip and fall and that there was an excessive application of wax on the floor. " '[T]he fact that a floor is slippery by reason of its smoothness or polish, in the absence of a negligent application of wax or polish, does not give rise to a cause of action or give rise to an inference of negligence’ ” (Pizzi v Bradlee’s Div., 172 AD2d 504, 505-506, quoting Silver v Brodsky, 112 AD2d 213, 214).

The plaintiff has failed to present any evidence demonstrating that the appellants were negligent in their application of wax or polish to the floor or that they otherwise created a hazardous condition. Additionally, the record does not reveal any triable issue of fact as to the required element of notice, either actual or constructive. Mangano, P. J., O’Brien, Ritter and Mc-Ginity, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants NCAS Realty Management Corp., Nor-wood A. Campbell, Alex Shapiro, George Bookis, Pierpointe on the Hudson Condominium I, and Board of Managers of Pierpointe on the Hudson Condominium I appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Cowhey, J.), dated May 3, 1996, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against them.'

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion is granted, the complaint is dismissed insofar as asserted against the appellants and the action against the remaining defendants is severed.

The plaintiff alleged that she slipped and fell on the lobby floor on the appellants’ premises, causing her to sustain personal injuries, as a result of the appellants’ negligence in creating a dangerous condition. In her affidavit submitted in [475]*475opposition to the appellants’ motion for summary judgment, the plaintiff averred that a wax buildup caused her to slip and fall and that there was an excessive application of wax on the floor. " '[T]he fact that a floor is slippery by reason of its smoothness or polish, in the absence of a negligent application of wax or polish, does not give rise to a cause of action or give rise to an inference of negligence’ ” (Pizzi v Bradlee’s Div., 172 AD2d 504, 505-506, quoting Silver v Brodsky, 112 AD2d 213, 214).

The plaintiff has failed to present any evidence demonstrating that the appellants were negligent in their application of wax or polish to the floor or that they otherwise created a hazardous condition. Additionally, the record does not reveal any triable issue of fact as to the required element of notice, either actual or constructive. Mangano, P. J., O’Brien, Ritter and Mc-Ginity, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

240 A.D.2d 474, 658 N.Y.S.2d 436, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6094, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lathan-v-ncas-realty-management-corp-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack