From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Madden v. New York Hospital

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jan 14, 1997
235 A.D.2d 245 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)

Opinion

January 14, 1997.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Stephen Crane, J.), entered June 21, 1995, granting defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the motion denied and the complaint reinstated.

Before: Milonas, J. P., Wallach, Rubin and Mazzarelli, JJ.


Plaintiff Beverly Madden slipped and fell on the floor in a corridor of the defendant hospital, injuring her arm and leg. According to plaintiff, the floor seemed particularly "shiny * * * slick and slippery to the touch." In response to defendant's motion for summary judgment, plaintiffs submitted an affidavit from an expert who had examined the floor six weeks after the incident, in Madden's company. According to the expert, his "close examination" revealed that the "floor finish was cloudy in places with hairs and mop string materials imbedded in the hardened finish. These conditions indicated to me that the floor had been improperly cleaned and the floor finishing materials had been carelessly applied." He also concluded that these observations supported the conclusion that the "stripper used to prepare the floor for finishing had been incompletely or improperly removed."

We disagree with the IAS Court that this affidavit did not raise triable issues of fact, and we reverse and reinstate the complaint. Through the expert's affidavit, plaintiffs have alleged more than that the floor was merely slippery or smooth, conditions that, alone, will not give rise to a cause of action or inference of negligence ( Murphy v Conner, 84 NY2d 969; Pizzi v Bradlee's Div. of Stop Shop, 172 AD2d 504). Unlike the cases cited by defendant and the court, the expert opinion proffered in the instant case was not based merely on inspection of the general area ( Murphy v Conner, supra) or inspection that took place years later ( Drillings v Beth Israel Med. Ctr., 200 AD2d 381), but on close inspection of the site of the accident in plaintiffs company only six weeks later; the affidavit did not consist of speculation concerning the cleaning products or practices of the hospital ( Pizzi v Bradlee's Div. of Stop Shop, supra), but, rather, set forth the specific findings that formed the basis for the expert's opinion that the floor had not been properly cared for. Accordingly, summary judgment should have been denied.


Summaries of

Madden v. New York Hospital

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jan 14, 1997
235 A.D.2d 245 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)
Case details for

Madden v. New York Hospital

Case Details

Full title:BEVERLY MADDEN et al., Appellants, v. NEW YORK HOSPITAL, Respondent

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Jan 14, 1997

Citations

235 A.D.2d 245 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)
652 N.Y.S.2d 23

Citing Cases

Scholastic Inc. v. Pace Plumbing Corp.

c. Issues of fact arising from the “battle of the experts” Next, the experts' conflicting opinions as to the…

Eichelbaum v. Douglas Ellirnan, LLC

SeeLugo v St. Nicholas Associates, 18 AD3d 341 (1st Dept. 2005). In conclusion, having failed to come forward…