Elias v. Heller
| Decision Date | 08 April 1960 |
| Citation | 23 Misc.2d 201,201 N.Y.S.2d 382 |
| Parties | Albert S. ELIAS, Plaintiff, v. Dorothy HELLER and Louis Heller, individually and severally, doing business as O. K. Window Cleaning Co., Defendants. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court |
Leighton & Steger, New York City (Milton Steger, New York City, of counsel), for plaintiff.
Bernard Helfenstein, Brooklyn (Martin M. Kolbrener, New York City, of counsel), for defendants. CHARLES A. LORETO, Justice.
Plaintiff was employed by Specialty Machine Company, occupying the sixth and tenth floors in a building at 132 Lafayette Street, Manhattan. The defendants are independent contractors engaged by plaintiff's employer to clean and wax the floors of its premises.
The claim of the plaintiff is that on September 24, 1955, at about 10:30 in the morning, while walking in the corridor on the sixth floor leading from his employer's workshop to the building elevator, he slipped and fell on the floor as he attempted to enter the elevator. Plaintiff testified that at 7:30 o'clock of that morning when he entered his employer's premises he observed that the floor of linoleum composition was dull, while just prior to his fall it was 'highly polished'. After falling he saw a 'skid mark on the floor and around the skid mark was damp, wetness'. He was asked what he observed about his appearance and his trousers and answered, 'I observed that on my knee, my left knee was a wetness and on the cuff of my pants and on my shoes was wet.' At another point, he said, 'I picked up the trousers of my left leg, * * * and as I did, I touched the wetness of my knee and found it to be slippery.'
There was testimony in the case that the corridors of the sixth and tenth floors were being waxed that morning. The defendant's proof was that the cleaning and waxing operation had commenced on the tenth floor at 7:30 o'clock and its duration was six to seven hours, and also that the procedure was to spread a liquid non-skid wax with a mop, and after drying for about 15 minutes, to complete the polishing with a mechanical device known as a buffer. There was no testimony as to whether the sixth floor had been waxed prior to plaintiff's fall. This is the basis on which the case was submitted to the jury, and represents the most favorable interpretation of the evidence in plaintiff's favor.
Plaintiff has recovered a verdict by a vote of ten to two. Decision was reserved on the defendants' motions to dismiss the complaint...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lubin v. Goldblatt Bros. Inc., Gen. No. 48476
...Scoville v. Smith Bldg. Co., 334 Ill.App. 262, 78 N.E.2d 858; Stephens v. Sears Roebuck & Co., 7 Cir., 212 F.2d 260 and Elias v. Heller, 23 Misc.2d 201, 201 N.Y.S.2d 382. But in none of these cases are the facts or surrounding circumstances similar to those found in the case at In Turner th......
-
Mannix v. Matthews
...be exposed to danger. (65 C.J.S. Negligence § 81 (10); Levine v. R. H. Macy & Co., 20 A.D.2d 761, 247 N.Y.S.2d 486; Elias v. Heller, 23 Misc.2d 201, 201 N.Y.S.2d 382, affd. 16 A.D.2d 760, 228 N.Y.S.2d Judgment and order reversed, on the law and the facts, without costs, and complaint dismis......
-
Silva v. American Irving Sav. Bank
...145, aff'd 296 N.Y. 870, 72 N.E.2d 608; Paddock, et al. v. Church of St. Barnabas, 24 A.D.2d 716, 263 N.Y.S.2d 463; Elias v. Heller, 23 Misc.2d 201, 201 N.Y.S.2d 382, aff'd 16 A.D.2d 760, 228 N.Y.S.2d All concur except CAPOZZOLI, J., who dissents in the following memorandum: CAPOZZOLI, Just......
-
Paddock v. Church of St. Barnabas
...145, affd. 296 N.Y. 870, 72 N.E.2d 608)' (Iorio v. Rockland Light and Power Company, 274 App.Div. 791, 79 N.Y.S.2d 217; Elias v. Heller, 23 Misc.2d 201, 201 N.Y.S.2d 382, affd. 16 A.D.2d 760, 228 N.Y.S.2d 460). The cases cited by plaintiffs involved abnormalities of floor surface not present ...