Murphy v. Conner

• Decision Date: 13 December 1994
• Citation: 646 N.E.2d 796,84 N.Y.2d 969,622 N.Y.S.2d 494
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: , 646 N.E.2d 796 Stephanie MURPHY et al., Appellants, v. A.J. CONNER et al., Defendants, and Newman & Doll et al., Respondents. Stephanie MURPHY et al., Appellants, v. CITY OF ELMIRA, Respondent.

Page 494

622 N.Y.S.2d 494

84 N.Y.2d 969, 646 N.E.2d 796

Stephanie MURPHY et al., Appellants, v. A.J. CONNER et al., Defendants, and Newman & Doll et al., Respondents.

Stephanie MURPHY et al., Appellants, v. CITY OF ELMIRA, Respondent.

Court of Appeals of New York.

Dec. 13, 1994.

[84 N.Y.2d 970] [646 N.E.2d 797] Learned, Reilly & Learned, Elmira (Scott J. Learned, of counsel), for appellants.

MacKenzie Smith Lewis Michell & Hughes, Syracuse (Barney F. Bilello, of counsel), for Newman & Doll and others, respondents.

Davidson & O'Mara, P.C., Elmira (Thomas F. O'Mara and Ransom P. Reynolds, Jr., of counsel), for City of Elmira, respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT MEMORANDUM.

In each case, 199 A.D.2d 929, 606 N.Y.S.2d 790, 202 A.D.2d 779, 609 N.Y.S.2d 869, the order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

These actions were commenced in April 1990, by Stephanie and Lyndon Murphy, to recover damages for personal injuries sustained on June 15, 1987 by plaintiff Stephanie Murphy when she slipped and fell on the floor of Eastowne Mall, owned by defendant City of Elmira, and, at the time of plaintiff's incident, operated and maintained by the Elmira Urban Renewal Agency. The issue here is whether the Appellate Division erred in reversing the motion court and granting summary judgment to the defendants. The complaints allege that defendants were negligent in allowing the floor of the mall to exist in a slippery and unsafe condition, in constructing or causing to be constructed a floor surface in a slippery and unsafe condition, and in failing to warn of the condition. In an examination before trial, plaintiff testified that as she walked out into the mall, she fell. Although not exactly sure why she fell, plaintiff stated that she was completely outside of the archway of her employer's door, at least six feet away from the doorway, walking into the common area of the mall and fell on one of two types of tile.

Defendants Newman & Doll, Cahn Engineering and Greiner, Inc., a firm providing engineering and architectural services in connection with construction of the mall, and its successors in interest, moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint against them. Defendant City also moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint upon the ground that the claim of slippery floor tiles was insufficient as a matter of law. Relying upon the opinion of plaintiffs' expert that the coefficient of friction of the flooring materials in the area where plaintiff fell failed to conform to industry standards, Supreme Court denied the motions.

The Appellate Division reversed and granted defendants' motions. While noting that summary judgment in favor of the defendants was generally precluded when the opinion...