Paddock v. Church of St. Barnabas, Woodlawn & McLean Heights, Inc.

24 A.D.2d 716, 263 N.Y.S.2d 463, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3353
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided September 30, 1965·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Judgment in favor of plaintiffs unanimously reversed, on the law, and the complaint dismissed, with $50 costs to appellant. Absent from this record, although read most favorably to plaintiffs, is any evidence from which a jury could reasonably find negligent application of the wax, or that the floor became more slippery or otherwise dangerous, as a result of the wax being applied when the floor was dirty. “ The fact that a floor is slippery by reason of its smoothness or polish, in the absence of proof of negligent application of the wax or polish, does not give rise to a cause of action. (Nelson v. Salem Danish Lutheran Church, 270 App. Div. 1030, affd. 296 N. Y. 870) ” (Iorio v. Rockland Light & Power Co., 274 App. Div. 791; Elias v. Heller, 23 Misc 2d 201, affd. 16 A D 2d 760.) The cases cited by plaintiffs involved abnormalities of floor surface not present here. Concur — Botein, P. J., McNally, Stevens, Eager and Steuer, JJ.

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

Paddock v. Church of St. Barnabas, Woodlawn & McLean Heights, Inc., 24 A.D.2d 716, 263 N.Y.S.2d 463, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3353 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1965).

24 A.D.2d 716 (Paddock v. Church of St. Barnabas, Woodlawn & McLean Heights, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Gootman v. Village of Haverstraw
200 A.D.2d 829 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1994)
Galler v. Prudential Insurance Co. of America
99 A.D.2d 720 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1984)