Purcell v. York Building Maintenance Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Purcell v. York Building Maintenance Corp.

57 A.D.3d 210, 869 N.Y.2d 32

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided December 2, 2008·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

[211] Plaintiffs deposition testimony that the floor on which she slipped was “very shiny” and “over waxed,” without more, does not support an inference of negligent waxing or polishing (see Davies v City of New York, 39 AD3d 390 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 808 [2007]). Nor may such inference be made on the basis of plaintiffs testimony that a carpet and a yellow “caution” or “slippery” sign were placed on the floor shortly after her fall (see Fernandez v Higdon El. Co., 220 AD2d 293 [1995]). We have considered plaintiffs other evidence and arguments and find them unavailing. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Saxe, Catterson, Renwick and Freedman, JJ. [See 2008 NY Slip Op 31606(U).]

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

[211] Plaintiffs deposition testimony that the floor on which she slipped was “very shiny” and “over waxed,” without more, does not support an inference of negligent waxing or polishing (see Davies v City of New York, 39 AD3d 390 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 808 [2007]). Nor may such inference be made on the basis of plaintiffs testimony that a carpet and a yellow “caution” or “slippery” sign were placed on the floor shortly after her fall (see Fernandez v Higdon El. Co., 220 AD2d 293 [1995]). We have considered plaintiffs other evidence and arguments and find them unavailing. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Saxe, Catterson, Renwick and Freedman, JJ. [See 2008 NY Slip Op 31606(U).]

Purcell v. York Building Maintenance Corp., 57 A.D.3d 210, 869 N.Y.2d 32 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

57 A.D.3d 210 (Purcell v. York Building Maintenance Corp.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related