Case Name: Hilda V. Pike et al., Appellants, v. Robert Sillins et al., Copartners Doing Business as Prince George Hotel Associates, et al., Respondents; Robert Sillins et al., Copartners, Doing Business as Prince George Hotel Associates, et al., Third-Party Plaintiffs, v. George Lane, Doing Business as E. Z. Clean Floor Co., Third-Party Defendant
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1969-02-25
Citations: 31 A.D.2d 805
Docket Number: 
Parties: Hilda V. Pike et al., Appellants, v. Robert Sillins et al., Copartners Doing Business as Prince George Hotel Associates, et al., Respondents. Robert Sillins et al., Copartners, Doing Business as Prince George Hotel Associates, et al., Third-Party Plaintiffs, v. George Lane, Doing Business as E. Z. Clean Floor Co., Third-Party Defendant.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 31
Pages: 805–806

Head Matter:
Hilda V. Pike et al., Appellants, v. Robert Sillins et al., Copartners Doing Business as Prince George Hotel Associates, et al., Respondents. Robert Sillins et al., Copartners, Doing Business as Prince George Hotel Associates, et al., Third-Party Plaintiffs, v. George Lane, Doing Business as E. Z. Clean Floor Co., Third-Party Defendant.

Opinion:
Judgment entered June 21, 1968, unanimously reversed on the law and a new trial ordered with costs to abide the event. Plaintiff's wife was injured when she fell on the lobby floor of premises controlled by respondents. There was proof that following the fall a skid mark was observed on -the floor and flakes of wax adhered to plaintiff's shoo and stocking. A qualified expert in reply to a hypothetical question based on these facts expressed .the opinion that successive layers of wax had been applied to the floor; .that this was not in accord with proper custom and was an improper procedure. This distinguishes this case from Silva v. American Irving Sav. Bank (31 A D 2d 620). Respondents submitted no proof. The trial court erred in dismissing the complaint. Factual issues were presented that should have been submitted to the jury. (Reisner v. New York Kosher Provisions, 25 A D 2d 511; Garrison v. Lockheed Aircraft Service-New York, 24 A D 2d 998.) Concur—McNally, Steuer and Bastow, JJ.; Capozzoli, J. P., and Nunez, J., concur in the result.