Case Name: W. Spencer Wright, Appellant, v. Tudor City Twelfth Unit, Inc., and Fred F. French Management Company, Inc., Respondents, and Beaver House & Window Cleaning Co., Inc., Defendant, Impleaded, Pursuant to Section 264 of the Civil Practice Act, by Way of Supplemental Summons
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1936-06-23
Citations: 248 A.D. 213
Docket Number: 
Parties: W. Spencer Wright, Appellant, v. Tudor City Twelfth Unit, Inc., and Fred F. French Management Company, Inc., Respondents, and Beaver House & Window Cleaning Co., Inc., Defendant, Impleaded, Pursuant to Section 264 of the Civil Practice Act, by Way of Supplemental Summons.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 248
Pages: 213–214

Head Matter:
W. Spencer Wright, Appellant, v. Tudor City Twelfth Unit, Inc., and Fred F. French Management Company, Inc., Respondents, and Beaver House & Window Cleaning Co., Inc., Defendant, Impleaded, Pursuant to Section 264 of the Civil Practice Act, by Way of Supplemental Summons.
First Department,
June 23, 1936.
Joseph A. Nickerson of counsel [Stanley D. Brown and E. Douglas Hamilton with him on the brief; Sackett, Chapman, Brown & Cross, attorneys], for the appellant.
H. H. Brown of counsel [E. C. Sherwood,- attorney], for the respondents.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
The plaintiff testified that the rubber mats or runners were used as part of the equipment of the lobby of the hotel, which was conceded by the answer of each defendant to have been under defendant's control. At the time of the accident the mats were being washed with soap and water in front of the defendants' premises. From these facts an inference may be made that the defendants' property while being cleaned in front of the premises was within the control of the employees. To repel that inference it was incumbent on the defendants to offer proof to the contrary. Nor can it be held as matter of law that the flooding of the sidewalk with soapy water does not create a dangerous condition.
The judgment should be reversed and a new trial ordered, with costs to the appellant to abide the event.
Present — Martin, P. J., McAvoy, Untermyer, Dore and Cohn, JJ.
Judgment unanimously reversed and a new trial ordered, with costs to the appellant to abide the event.