From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Septoff v. La Shellda Maintenance Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Sep 22, 1997
242 A.D.2d 618 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)

Summary

In Septoff v La Shellda Maintenance Corp., 242 AD2d 618 (2nd Dept. 1997), this Court held that there is no requirement of notice where the defendant created the subject condition.

Summary of this case from Ruocco v. L-K Bennett Enters., LLC

Opinion

September 22, 1997

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Shaw, J.).


Ordered that the judgment is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, and a new trial is granted, with costs to abide the event.

The plaintiff, Noralee Septoff, was injured when she slipped and fell on a substance on the floor in a store operated by the third-party defendant, Rock Bottom Inc. The defendant La Shellda Maintenance Corp. had been hired to strip the existing wax on the floors and to apply new wax. The plaintiffs contend that the slippery condition was created by the defendant's employees' use of a wax stripping material.

The trial court initially instructed the jury that the defendant could be found negligent if its employees created the dangerous condition and had notice of that condition. This instruction was incorrect, because there is no notice requirement where the defendant has created the dangerous condition ( see, Panagakos v. Greek Archdiocese, 213 A.D.2d 336; Ohanessian v. Chase Manhattan Realty Leasing Corp., 193 A.D.2d 567). Although the trial court properly agreed to give a modified instruction, the modified instruction may well have confused the jury and warrants reversal ( see, J.R. Loftus, Inc. v. White, 85 N.Y.2d 874; Cumbo v Valente, 118 A.D.2d 679). Accordingly, a new trial is ordered.

The plaintiffs' remaining contention is without merit ( see, Harvey v. Mazal Am. Partners, 79 N.Y.2d 218; People v. Pike, 131 A.D.2d 890).

Thompson, J.P., Pizzuto, Friedmann and Krausman, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Septoff v. La Shellda Maintenance Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Sep 22, 1997
242 A.D.2d 618 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)

In Septoff v La Shellda Maintenance Corp., 242 AD2d 618 (2nd Dept. 1997), this Court held that there is no requirement of notice where the defendant created the subject condition.

Summary of this case from Ruocco v. L-K Bennett Enters., LLC
Case details for

Septoff v. La Shellda Maintenance Corp.

Case Details

Full title:NORALEE SEPTOFF et al., Appellants, v. LA SHELLDA MAINTENANCE CORP.…

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

Date published: Sep 22, 1997

Citations

242 A.D.2d 618 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)
662 N.Y.S.2d 549

Citing Cases

Ruocco v. L-K Bennett Enters., LLC

See also, Sumell v Wegmans Food Markets, Inc., 254 AD2d 702 (4th Dept. 1998) (motion for summary judgment…

Peralta v. Henriquez

Therefore, the plaintiff sufficiently established a prima facie case of negligence against the appellants for…