O'Neal v. Servicemaster Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

O'Neal v. Servicemaster Co.

22 A.D.3d 356, 802 N.Y.S.2d 164

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

DecidedOctober 18, 2005

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 22 A.D.3d 356 (O'Neal v. Servicemaster Co.) 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

O'Neal v. Servicemaster Co., 22 A.D.3d 356, 802 N.Y.S.2d 164 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Leland DeGrasse, J.), entered August 19, 2004, which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denied plaintiffs cross motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

No issues of fact exist as to whether defendant, which was [357]*357under contract with plaintiffs employer, a hospital, to perform housekeeping management services, created the alleged dangerous condition that caused plaintiffs fall, or had notice thereof. There is no evidence that a maintenance employee actually mopped the floor before plaintiffs accident (see Sanchez v Delgado Travel Agency, 279 AD2d 623 [2001], lv denied 96 NY2d 711 [2001]; see also Loschiavo v Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., 58 NY2d 1040 [1983], affg 86 AD2d 624 [1982]), or even that the alleged soapy substance on the floor emanated from cleaning activity. Indeed, plaintiff, a scrub nurse, testified that scrub sinks lined the hallway she walked through in order to reach the entrance to the nurse’s on-call room, where she fell. Thus, the soapy substance could well have been tracked into the area by another nurse. Plaintiff’s claim that it was created by defendant’s negligent maintenance of the floor being entirely speculative, summary judgment was properly granted in defendant’s favor (see Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]). Concur—Tom, J.P., Andrias, Sullivan, Gonzalez and Sweeny, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Leland DeGrasse, J.), entered August 19, 2004, which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denied plaintiffs cross motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

No issues of fact exist as to whether defendant, which was [357]*357under contract with plaintiffs employer, a hospital, to perform housekeeping management services, created the alleged dangerous condition that caused plaintiffs fall, or had notice thereof. There is no evidence that a maintenance employee actually mopped the floor before plaintiffs accident (see Sanchez v Delgado Travel Agency, 279 AD2d 623 [2001], lv denied 96 NY2d 711 [2001]; see also Loschiavo v Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., 58 NY2d 1040 [1983], affg 86 AD2d 624 [1982]), or even that the alleged soapy substance on the floor emanated from cleaning activity. Indeed, plaintiff, a scrub nurse, testified that scrub sinks lined the hallway she walked through in order to reach the entrance to the nurse’s on-call room, where she fell. Thus, the soapy substance could well have been tracked into the area by another nurse. Plaintiff’s claim that it was created by defendant’s negligent maintenance of the floor being entirely speculative, summary judgment was properly granted in defendant’s favor (see Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]). Concur—Tom, J.P., Andrias, Sullivan, Gonzalez and Sweeny, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

22 A.D.3d 356, 802 N.Y.S.2d 164, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/oneal-v-servicemaster-co-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack