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
NYC LANDMARKS PRESERVATION COMMISSION’S DECISION THAT IT DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO REGULATE THE MECHANISM OF AND ACCESS TO A LANDMARK NINETEENTH CENTURY CLOCKTOWER WHICH HAD BEEN PURCHASED BY A PRIVATE PARTY WAS BASED UPON AN ERROR OF LAW AND WAS IRRATIONAL (FIRST DEPT).
JURY INSTRUCTIONS ALLOWED DEFENDANT TO BE CONVICTED ON A THEORY THAT WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THE INDICTMENT, CONVICTION REVERSED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE IN THIS ANIMAL CRUELTY CASE, NEW TRIAL ORDERED DESPITE DEFENDANT’S HAVING COMPLETED HIS SENTENCE (FIRST DEPT).
THERE WERE QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL ON ICE AND SNOW IN A “PASSAGEWAY” WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE INDUSTRIAL CODE; THEREFORE DEFENDANT WAS NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 241(6) CAUSE OF ACTION (FIRST DEPT).
CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE NOT AFFECTED BY A YEAR AND THREE MONTH GAP IN TREATMENT, DEFENDANTS’ SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION (FIRST DEPT).
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN TRIP AND FALL CASE PROPERLY GRANTED.
Defendants Unable to Demonstrate that Plaintiff’s Alleged Breach of a Related Contract Relieved Defendants of the Obligation to Pay a Promissory Note—No Showing the Promissory Note and Oral Agreement Were “Intertwined”
CONTINUING WRONG DOCTRINE DID NOT APPLY TO EXTEND THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN THIS BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION.
POLICIES DID NOT REQUIRE THE INSURER TO DEFEND THE INSURED, BUT DID REQUIRE THE INSURER TO PAY THE INSURED’S DEFENSE COSTS (FIRST DEPT).

Categories

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

Copyright © 2023 New York Appellate Digest, LLC
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...