You are here: / / QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER NEGLIGENT WAXING WAS CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S...

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER NEGLIGENT WAXING WAS CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S FALL.

The First Department determined there was a question of fact whether plaintiff’s slip and fall was caused by excessive wax on the floor:

Defendants established entitlement to judgment as a matter of law in this action where plaintiff alleges that she was injured when she slipped on a floor that was negligently waxed. Defendants submitted evidence showing that the floor was last waxed approximately three months before plaintiff’s fall … . In opposition, plaintiff raised triable issues as to whether “a dangerous residue of wax was present” … . She stated that after she fell, there was wax on her hands and, when she stepped on the waxy area, she saw a “scuff mark” running through a circular area, creating a “sunken stripe through the wax.” Plaintiff slid her foot back and forth on the circular patch, and felt the “accumulated, raised, substance on the floor” move with the pressure of her foot, and these actions were captured on the building’s security footage. Sanchez v Mitsui Fudosan Am., Inc., 2017 NY Slip Op 01821, 1st Dept 3-15-17

NEGLIGENCE (SLIP AND FALL, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER NEGLIGENT WAXING WAS CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S FALL)/SLIP AND FALL (QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER NEGLIGENT WAXING WAS CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S FALL)/WAX (SLIP AND FALL, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER NEGLIGENT WAXING WAS CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S FALL)

You might also like
EXCLUSION FOR INJURY DURING UNLOADING AN INSURED TRAILER APPLIED, EVEN THOUGH THE INJURY WAS CAUSED BY A DEFECT IN THE TRAILER.
INDEMNITOR WAS NOT NOTIFIED OF A TAX AUDIT UNTIL A TAX ASSESSMENT WAS IMPOSED, UNDER THE CONTRACT, PREJUDICE SUFFICIENT TO RELIEVE THE INDEMNITOR OF THE CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATION TO INDEMNIFY NEED NOT ENTAIL TANGIBLE ECONOMIC LOSS, IT WAS ENOUGH THE INDEMNITOR WAS DENIED THE OPPORTUNITY TO CONTROL THE DEFENSE OF THE AUDIT.
EMERGENCY DOCTRINE DOES NOT USUALLY APPLY IN REAR-END COLLISION CASES, VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW RE FOLLOWING TOO CLOSELY CAN BE VIOLATED EVEN WHEN THERE IS NO COLLISION, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SUDDEN-STOP BUS-PASSENGER INJURY CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
Rebuttal Evidence Re: a Defense that Was Not Asserted Should Not Have Been Allowed (Harmless Error)/Partial Closure of Courtroom During Testimony of Undercover Officers Proper
FAILURE TO INSTRUCT THE JURY THAT WITNESSES WERE ACCOMPLICES AS A MATTER OF LAW REQUIRING CORROBORATION OF THEIR TESTIMONY WAS REVERSIBLE ERROR, DEFENSE COUNSEL’S FAILURE TO REQUEST THE INSTRUCTION CONSTITUTED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE, ISSUE REACHED ON APPEAL IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (FIRST DEPT).
FIREFIGHTER’S RULE DID NOT PRECLUDE NEGLIGENCE SUIT BY A POLICE OFFICER INJURED WHEN HE STEPPED OUT OF HIS VAN INTO A DEPRESSED AREA AROUND A SEWER GRATE, CITY DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT DID NOT HAVE CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE CONDITION (FIRST DEPT). ​
Sanctions for Discovery Noncompliance and Spoliation
DEFENDANT’S ATTORNEY DID NOT PROVIDE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL BY CONCEDING DEFENDANT SUFFERED FROM A DANGEROUS MENTAL DISORDER AND THEREBY EFFECTIVELY WAIVING A HEARING TO DETERMINE THE APPROPRIATE TRACK FOR DEFENDANT’S TREATMENT-CIVIL CONFINEMENT (FIRST DEPT).

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

IN THIS PROSECUTION ALLEGING DEFENDANT CELL PHONE COMPANY’S UNDERPAYMENT... ALTHOUGH THE FIRST DEPT FELT CONSTRAINED BY COURT OF APPEALS PRECEDENT TO DISMISS...