Paddock v. Church of St. Barnabas

• Decision Date: 30 September 1965
• Citation: 24 A.D.2d 716,263 N.Y.S.2d 463
• Parties: Susan PADDOCK, an infant by Margaret Paddock, her Guardian Ad Litem and William Paddock, Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. CHURCH OF ST. BARNABAS, Woodlawn & McLean Heights, Inc., Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 463

263 N.Y.S.2d 463

24 A.D.2d 716

Susan PADDOCK, an infant by Margaret Paddock, her Guardian Ad Litem and William Paddock, Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. CHURCH OF ST. BARNABAS, Woodlawn & McLean Heights, Inc.,

Defendant-Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

Sept. 30, 1965.

R. A. Corleto, for plaintiffs-respondents.

L. E. Cuff, Kew Gardens, for defendant-appellant.

Before BOTEIN, P. J., and McNALLY, STEVENS, EAGER and STEUER, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Judgment in favor of plaintiffs unanimously reversed, on the law, and the complaint dismissed, with $50 costs to appellant. Absent from this record, although read most favorably to plaintiffs, is any evidence from which a jury could reasonably find negligent application of the wax, or that the floor became more slippery or otherwise dangerous, as a result of the wax being applied when the floor was dirty. 'The fact that a floor is slippery by reason of its smoothness or polish, in the absence of proof of negligent application of the wax or polish, does not give rise to a cause of action. (Nelson v. Salem Danish Lutheran Church, 270 App.Div. 1030, 63 N.Y.S.2d 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 here.