You are here: / / A SMOOTH SLIPPERY SURFACE, STANDING ALONE, WILL NOT SUPPORT A CAUSE OF...

A SMOOTH SLIPPERY SURFACE, STANDING ALONE, WILL NOT SUPPORT A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENCE IN A SLIP AND FALL CASE.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant was entitled to summary judgment in a slip and fall case. The court noted that a smooth surface which is slippery, standing alone, does not raise a question of fact:

The plaintiffs commenced this action, alleging that the defendants had negligently applied wax to the staircase, making it dangerously slippery. The defendants moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and the Supreme Court denied the motion. We reverse.

During the injured plaintiff’s deposition, the transcript of which was submitted in support of the defendants’ motion, he testified that he did not see any foreign substance, liquids, or other slippery substance on the steps, either before or after the subject accident. “[I]n 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” … . Here, in support of their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, the defendants submitted evidence sufficient to establish their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing so much of the complaint as was based on the defendants’ alleged negligent application of wax or polish to the subject staircase … . Kapoor v Randlett, 2016 NY Slip Op 07927, 2nd Dept 11-23-16

 

NEGLIGENCE (A SMOOTH SLIPPERY SURFACE, STANDING ALONE, WILL NOT SUPPORT A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENCE IN A SLIP AND FALL CASE)/SLIP AND FALL (A SMOOTH SLIPPERY SURFACE, STANDING ALONE, WILL NOT SUPPORT A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENCE IN A SLIP AND FALL CASE)

You might also like
THE TERMS OF THE LEASE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE DEFENDANT OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORD DID NOT HAVE A DUTY TO MAKE NONSTRUCTURAL FLOOR REPAIRS; THE LANDLORD’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT AFFIDAVIT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION DID NOT LAY A FOUNDATION FOR AN OPINION OUTSIDE THE EXPERT’S FIELD AND DID NOT REBUT THE OPINIONS OF DEFENDANT’S EXPERT; DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
Question of Fact Whether Plaintiff-Employee Indicated Employer’s Sexual Advances Were “Unwelcome”–Dismissal of Employment Discrimination Complaint Reversed
Supreme Court Should Not Have Denied Motion to Set Aside a Stipulation of Settlement Without a Hearing, Criteria Explained/Lower Court Properly Considered Issues Raised for the First Time in Plaintiff’s Reply Papers Because Defendant Availed Himself of the Opportunity to Oppose the Contentions at Oral Argument
Criteria for Determining a Motion to Amend the Pleadings Explained
Standard for Liability of Members of Volunteer Fire Company
THE BANK IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE MAILING REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 (SECOND DEPT).
Condition Which Resulted in Plaintiff’s Injury Was Not the Cause of the Injury

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

FIRE REKINDLED AFTER FIRE DEPARTMENT PERSONNEL ASSURED PLAINTIFFS THE FIRE WAS... NO VARIANCE REQUIRED TO ALLOW CHURCH PROPERTY TO BE USED TO HOUSE HOMELESS ...