Case Name: Mary Purcell, Respondent, v. York Building Maintenance Corp., Appellant, et al., Defendant
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 2008-12-02
Citations: 57 A.D.3d 210
Docket Number: 
Parties: Mary Purcell, Respondent, v York Building Maintenance Corp., Appellant, et al., Defendant.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 57
Pages: 210–211

Head Matter:
Mary Purcell, Respondent, v York Building Maintenance Corp., Appellant, et al., Defendant.
[869 NYS2d 32]

Opinion:
Plaintiffs 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., Saxe, Catterson, Renwick and Freedman, JJ. [See 2008 NY Slip Op 31606(U).]