Legal Opinion

Purcell v. York Building Maintenance Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Decided December 2, 2008PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

*211Plaintiffs deposition testimony that the floor on which she slipped was “very shiny” and “over waxed,” without more, does not support an inference of negligent waxing or polishing (see Davies v City of New York, 39 AD3d 390 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 808 [2007]). Nor may such inference be made on the basis of plaintiffs testimony that a carpet and a yellow “caution” or “slippery” sign were placed on the floor shortly after her fall (see Fernandez v Higdon El. Co., 220 AD2d 293 [1995]). We have considered plaintiffs other evidence and arguments and find them unavailing. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P.,…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Fernandez v. Higdon Elevator Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1995
  2. Davies v. City of New YorkAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2007

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Goldin v. Riverbay Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2009
  2. De Paris v. Women's National Republican Club, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2017
  3. De Paris v. Women's National Republican Club, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2017

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API