Purcell v York Bldg. Maintenance Corp.

Purcell v York Bldg. Maintenance Corp. 2008 NY Slip Op 09439 [57 AD3d 210] December 2, 2008 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. As corrected through Wednesday, February 11, 2009

Mary Purcell, Respondent,
v
York Building Maintenance Corp., Appellant, et al., Defendant.

—[*1] Smith Mazure Director Wilkins Young & Yagerman, P.C., New York (Anna A. Higgins of counsel), for appellant.

Allyn, Hausner & Montanile, LLP, White Plains (Joseph A. Montanile of counsel), for respondent.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Emily Jane Goodman, J.), entered on or about June 12, 2008, which, in an action for personal injuries allegedly caused by a slippery floor, denied the motion of defendant-appellant, a janitorial services contractor, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against it, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the motion granted and the complaint dismissed. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of defendant York Building Maintenance Corp. dismissing the complaint as against it.

Plaintiff's deposition testimony that the floor on which she slipped was "very shiny" and "over waxed," without more, does not support an inference of negligent waxing or polishing (see Davies v City of New York, 39 AD3d 390 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 808 [2007]). Nor may such inference be made on the basis of plaintiff's testimony that a carpet and a yellow "caution" or "slippery" sign were placed on the floor shortly after her fall (see Fernandez v Higdon El. Co., 220 AD2d 293 [1995]). We have considered plaintiff's other evidence and arguments and find them unavailing. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Saxe, Catterson, Renwick and Freedman, JJ. [See 2008 NY Slip Op 31606(U).]