Mroz v. Ella Corp.

262 A.D.2d 465, 692 N.Y.S.2d 156, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6636
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJune 14, 1999
StatusPublished
Cited by20 cases

This text of 262 A.D.2d 465 (Mroz v. Ella 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
Mroz v. Ella Corp., 262 A.D.2d 465, 692 N.Y.S.2d 156, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6636 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Opinion

[466]*466—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Doyle, J.), entered April 8, 1998, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

On May 23, 1990, the plaintiff Stephen Mroz was a guest in the defendant’s hotel when he slipped and fell in the bathroom of his room. The plaintiffs subsequently commenced this action, contending that the injured plaintiff had fallen “due to the dangerous slippery nature of the defective floor tiles”.

The Supreme Court properly granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint after it made out a prima facie case of entitlement to that relief. It is well settled that in the absence of evidence of a negligent application of floor wax or polish, the mere fact that a smooth floor may be slippery does not support a cause of action to recover damages for negligence (see, Kline v Abraham, 178 NY 377; Murphy v Conner, 84 NY2d 969; Guarino v La Shellda Maintenance Corp., 252 AD2d 514). Here, while the plaintiffs opposed the motion for summary judgment with the affidavit of a safety consultant who found that the friction coefficient of the floor tiles in the defendant’s hotel bathrooms did not meet industry standards, the expert’s opinion essentially concluded that the tiles were slippery due to their smoothness, which is not an actionable defect (see, Murphy v Conner, supra; Bauer v Hirschbedner Assocs., 228 AD2d 400). Moreover, the observations of the plaintiffs’ expert, which were based upon an inspection made over six years after the accident, were conclusory and insufficient to establish that the failure to properly clean the bathroom floors created a dangerous condition on the date of the injured plaintiff’s fall (see, Duffy v Universal Maintenance Corp., 227 AD2d 238; Mankowski v Two Park Co., 225 AD2d 673; Drillings v Beth Israel Med. Ctr., 200 AD2d 381). Krausman, J. P., McGinity, Feuerstein and Smith, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Alvarez v. Staten Is. R.T. Operating Auth.
2024 NY Slip Op 01695 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2024)
Kapoor v. Randlett
2016 NY Slip Op 7927 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
Nussbaum v. Metro-North Commuter Railroad
994 F. Supp. 2d 483 (S.D. New York, 2014)
SAVAGE, SUZANNE K. v. ANDERSON'S FROZEN CUSTARD, INC.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012
Savage v. Anderson's Frozen Custard, Inc.
100 A.D.3d 1563 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
Walsh v. Super Value, Inc.
76 A.D.2d 371 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Kociecki v. EOP-Midtown Properties, LLC
66 A.D.3d 967 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
German v. Campbell Inn
37 A.D.3d 405 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
DeCarlo v. Village of Dobbs Ferry
36 A.D.3d 749 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
Ciccarelli v. Cotira, Inc.
24 A.D.3d 1276 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)
Palermo v. Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn, N.Y.
20 A.D.3d 516 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)
Tomol v. Sbarro, Inc.
306 A.D.2d 461 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)
Miles v. Staten Theatre Group
302 A.D.2d 373 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)
Cribbs v. ISS International Service System, Inc.
300 A.D.2d 339 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
Rodriguez v. Kimco Centereach 605, Inc.
298 A.D.2d 571 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
Lindeman v. Vecchione Construction Corp.
275 A.D.2d 392 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)
Malmut v. Lindenwood Village Coop Corp.
272 A.D.2d 528 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)
Wasserstrom v. New York City Transit Authority
267 A.D.2d 36 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)
Werner v. Neary
264 A.D.2d 731 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
262 A.D.2d 465, 692 N.Y.S.2d 156, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6636, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mroz-v-ella-corp-nyappdiv-1999.