Opinion
December 14, 1999
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Huff, J.), entered October 16, 1998, which, in an action for personal injuries allegedly caused by defendant maintenance contractor's negligent application of floor wax, denied defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously reversed, without costs, the motion granted, and the complaint dismissed. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of defendant-appellant dismissing the complaint.
Paul T. Vink, for plaintiffs-respondents.
James K. O'Sullivan, for defendant-appellant.
RUBIN, J.P., ANDRIAS, SAXE, BUCKLEY, FRIEDMAN, JJ.
It is well settled that the mere fact that stairs are slippery by reason of their smoothness or polish does not give rise to a cause of action or an inference of negligence in the absence of proof that the wax was negligently applied (Murphy v. Conner, 84 N.Y.2d 969;Kline v. Abraham, 178 N.Y. 377; Marku v. 33 S P Realty Corp., 251 A.D.2d 633; Madden v. New York Hosp., 235 A.D.2d 245; Thomas v. Caldor's, 224 A.D.2d 171; Katz v. New York Hosp., 170 A.D.2d 345;Lowrey v. Cumberland Farms, 162 A.D.2d 777;Nelson v. Salem Danish Lutheran Church, 270 A.D. 1030, affd 296 N.Y. 870). Here, plaintiff Mary Aguilar's conclusory claim that she "felt" wax was insufficient, without more, to establish that defendant was negligent (compare, Murphy v. Conner, supra; Ullman v. Cohn, 248 A.D.2d 200; Thomas v. Caldor's, supra; Panagakos v. Greek Archdiocese, 213 A.D.2d 336; Nelson v. Salem Danish Lutheran Church,supra).
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.