You are here: / / PLAINTIFF RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT RE: THE NEGLIGENT APPLICATION OF FLOOR...
,

PLAINTIFF RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT RE: THE NEGLIGENT APPLICATION OF FLOOR WAX IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined plaintiff raised a question of fact whether the area where she slipped and fell was excessively waxed:

… [P]laintiff raised an issue of fact as to “the negligent application of wax . . . by evidence that a dangerous residue of wax was present” … . Plaintiff testified that the waxy substance on the floor was on the side of her clothing and that where she fell there was an indentation into the substance. This testimony is sufficient to establish an issue of fact as to whether wax was negligently applied … . This evidence “conflicted with [defendants’] assertions that the area was never waxed, creating triable issues of fact precluding the grant of summary judgment” … . Scaccia v Brookfield Props. One WFC Co., LLC, 2024 NY Slip Op 02677, First Dept 5-14-23

Practice Point: The negligent application of floor wax can result in liability for a slip and fall.

 

You might also like
Alternative Holding in Prior Appeal Did Not Have Preclusive Effect
Student Who Had Been Expelled Could Bring Plenary Complaint Against School, in Addition to an Article 78 Proceeding
Severity of Injuries Compared With the Absence of a Damages Award for Past and Future Economic and Non-Economic Loss Indicates an “Impermissible Compromise Verdict” Was Reached—New Trial on Liability and Damages Properly Ordered
Permission to Re-Submit Charges to a Second Grand Jury Was Required.
ERROR TO IMPOSE PRE-JUDGMENT INTEREST AT THE STATUTORY RATE WHEN CONTRACT PROVIDED THAT THE INTEREST-BEARING DOWNPAYMENT WAS THE EXCLUSIVE REMEDY FOR BREACH.
DEFENDANT ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON HIS MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION, HE ADEQUATELY ALLEGED DEFENSE COUNSEL GAVE HIM WRONG INFORMATION ABOUT THE DEPORTATION CONSEQUENCES OF A GUILTY PLEA VERSUS A CONVICTION AFTER TRIAL.
LANDOWNERS DID NOT HAVE A DUTY TO PROVIDE SECURITY IN PUBLIC VESTIBULE OF THEIR BUILDING WHERE PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT WAS SHOT (FIRST DEPT).
DEFENDANT’S REQUEST TO REPLACE OR DISMISS HIS STANDBY COUNSEL PROPERLY DENIED (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

FORMER PRESIDENT TRUMP’S PETITION FOR A WRIT OF PROHIBITION CHALLENGING... ALTHOUGH THE PIPE WAS A DANGEROUS CONDITION INHERENT IN THE WORK, IT WAS AN...