Duffy v. Universal Maintenance Corp.
| Decision Date | 16 May 1996 |
| Citation | 227 A.D.2d 238,642 N.Y.S.2d 282 |
| Parties | Diane DUFFY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNIVERSAL MAINTENANCE CORP., Defendant-Respondent/Third-Party Plaintiff-Respondent, v. STERLING SANITARY SUPPLY CORP., Third-Party Defendant-Respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Heddyeh P. Brumand, for plaintiff-appellant.
Brian J. Isaac, for third-party plaintiff-respondent.
Nancy Quinn Koba for third-party defendant-respondent.
Before ROSENBERGER, J.P., and RUBIN, KUPFERMAN, NARDELLI and TOM, JJ.
Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Stanley Green, J.), entered on or about May 3, 1995, which granted defendant's and third-party defendant's motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The complaint against the maintenance company was properly dismissed absent evidence of the reason for plaintiff's fall, other than the "inherently slippery" condition of the terrazzo floor (see, Murphy v. Conner, 84 N.Y.2d 969, 622 N.Y.S.2d 494, 646 N.E.2d 796; see also, Harris v. S & P Mgt. Corp., 163 A.D.2d 870, 558 N.Y.S.2d 399; Van Alstyne v. Fonda, 224 A.D.2d 901, 638 N.Y.S.2d 224). There was no proof of negligent application of wax or polish to the floor and no proof, or even claim, that defendant's actions made the floor dangerous. The court properly disregarded as conclusory that part of plaintiff's expert's opinion that was based on observations of the lobby floor and a storage room made over four years after the accident (see, Drillings v. Beth Israel Med. Ctr., 200 A.D.2d 381, 606 N.Y.S.2d 191). Also properly disregarded, as inadmissible hearsay, were the unsworn written statements of plaintiff's co-workers that the floor was always slippery and that they had often seen maintenance personnel scrubbing and polishing it (Adams v. Alexander's Dept. Stores, 226 A.D.2d 130, 639 N.Y.S.2d 826).
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mroz v. Ella Corp.
...clean the bathroom floors created a dangerous condition on the date of the injured plaintiff's fall (see, Duffy v. Universal Maintenance Corp., 227 A.D.2d 238, 642 N.Y.S.2d 282; Mankowski v. Two Park Co., 225 A.D.2d 673, 639 N.Y.S.2d 847; Drillings v. Beth Israel Med. Ctr., 200 A.D.2d 381, ......
-
680 511 v. 1998 511 680 511 1998 10,520 Kruimer v. National Cleaning Contractors, Inc
... ... floor was inherently slippery, and thereby required particular maintenance" and procedures to keep it reasonably safe for pedestrian traffic ... \xC2" ... Astor Court Owners Corp., 248 A.D.2d 267, 668 N.Y.S.2d 890; Duffy v. Universal Maintenance Corp., ... ...
-
Wasserstrom v. New York City Transit Authority
...is not itself indicative of negligence (Murphy v. Conner, 84 N.Y.2d 969, 622 N.Y.S.2d 494, 646 N.E.2d 796; Duffy v. Universal Maintenance Corp., 227 A.D.2d 238, 642 N.Y.S.2d 282; see also, Mroz v. Ella Corp., ---A.D.2d ----, 692 N.Y.S.2d 156, ). Nor does the additional unremarkable circumst......
-
Malossi v. State
...constitute a dangerous condition (see, O'Connor v. ISS Intl. Serv. Sys., 228 A.D.2d 898, 644 N.Y.S.2d 410; Duffy v. Universal Maintenance Corp., 227 A.D.2d 238, 642 N.Y.S.2d 282). Claimants nevertheless contend that the Court of Claims' determination is flawed due to its failure to consider......