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
THE EVIDENCE DID NOT SUPPORT A FINDING OF NEGLECT FOR FAILURE TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE SHELTER (FIRST DEPT).
MOVING PARTY CANNOT RELY ON GAPS IN OPPOSING PARTY’S PROOF IN MOTIONS AND CROSS-MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; WITNESS-CREDIBILITY SHOULD NOT BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT AT THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT STAGE.
Plaintiff Entitled to Summary Judgment on His Labor Law 240 (1) Cause of Action—Plaintiff Fell from Temporary Staircase Which Was Wet from Rain
RE TIMELINESS OF CLAIMS ALLEGING DEFECTIVE MORTGAGES UNDERLYING RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE BACKED SECURITIES, WHERE THE CONTRACT CALLS FOR TIMELY NOTICES OF BREACH, NO NOTICE OF BREACH REQUIRED WHERE DEFENDANT ITSELF DISCOVERS THE DEFECTIVE MORTGAGE.
Negligence of Dog Owners In Calling A Dog Which Ran Into Bicyclist’s Path Is Actionable
Criteria for Liability for Acts of Independent Contractor and for Negligent Hiring of an Independent Contractor Explained (Criteria Not Met Here)
IT WAS SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGED THE RELEASE WAS INDUCED BY FRAUD; THE COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).
ISSUE WHICH WAS NOT RAISED IN THE PRIOR FEDERAL ACTION BUT WHICH CONSTITUTED A COMPLUSORY COUNTERCLAIM UNDER FEDERAL LAW BARRED IN SUBSEQUENT STATE ACTION UNDER DOCTRINE OF RES JUDICATA.

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...