Court Opinion

ID: 9872805
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-26 21:14:41.99567+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:46:29.640592
License: Public Domain

Friedman, J.P., and Andrias, J.,
dissent in a memorandum by Andrias, J., as follows: Because I believe that plaintiff’s unsupported assertions do not raise a material issue of fact sufficient to defeat the motion for summary judgment, I respectfully dissent.
Plaintiff, a member of defendant, Women’s National Republican Club, since 1978, slipped and fell when she took her “first step” with her right foot and with her cane onto the “old marble” floor of defendant’s first-floor ladies’ room. She claims that she fell due to excessive wax on the floor.
It is well settled that “the fact that a floor is slippery by reason of its smoothness or polish, in the absence of proof of a negligent application of wax or polish, does not give rise to a cause of action or an inference of negligence” (Katz v New York Hosp., 170 AD2d 345, 345 [1st Dept 1991]). Where the defendant comes forth with evidence that no wax was used, the plaintiff must “come forward and make a showing that a slippery foreign substance was in fact present or that the floor was improperly maintained” (id. at 346).
Defendant established prima facie its entitlement to summary judgment by submitting an affidavit by its general manager showing that the ladies’ room floor was cleaned with only a “mop and water,” that wax was never applied to the floor, that she inspected the ladies’ room an hour before the accident, at which time the floor was “free of any water, wax or debris,” and that at no time before plaintiff’s fall did she or her staff receive any complaints regarding a wet, slippery or slick *406condition therein (see Villa v Property Resources Corp., 137 AD3d 454 [1st Dept 2016] [defendants satisfied their initial burden by testimony that the floor was never waxed, but was mopped daily by a porter and polished periodically with a buffer]; Kalish v HEI Hospitality, LLC, 114 AD3d 444 [1st Dept 2014] [summary judgment was properly granted to defendant because it provided testimony that the floors in the ladies’ rooms were never waxed and that before the accident it had not received any complaints about the ladies’ room floor being slippery]; Ross v Betty G. Reader Revocable Trust, 86 AD3d 419, 421 [1st Dept 2011] [defendant meets burden “by producing evidence of its maintenance activities on the day of the accident, and specifically that the dangerous condition did not exist when the area was last inspected or cleaned before plaintiff fell”]). Defendant also submitted the testimony of its membership director, who inspected the area right after plaintiff fell, and did not see any scuff marks or anything that looked slippery or wet.
In opposition, plaintiff’s testimony that after she fell she “saw a big line, the dent of [her] shoe in the wax all the way that [she] fell” and that she “felt the wetness, the waxiness of the floor” does not suffice to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether defendant was negligent (see Villa, 137 AD3d at 454 [plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact with testimony that she saw a porter using a buffing machine the day before she fell and the conclusory claim that the substance left “wetness” on her pants and her hands smelled like wax or ammonia]; Purcell v York Bldg. Maintenance Corp., 57 AD3d 210, 211 [1st Dept 2008] [“Plaintiff’s 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”]; Aguilar v Transworld Maintenance Servs., 267 AD2d 85, 86 [1st Dept 1999] [plaintiff’s conclusory claim that she “felt” wax after her fall was insufficient to raise an inference of negligent waxing], lv denied 94 NY2d 762 [2000]).
The majority concludes that “plaintiff’s proof was not speculative and was sufficient to defeat the motion, because she set forth a specific reason for the slippery condition on the floor, namely a build-up of wax.” In reaching this conclusion, the majority finds that Villa (137 AD3d 454) and Aguilar (267 AD2d 85) are inapposite because here plaintiff asserts that she “ ‘saw a big line, the dent of my shoe in the wax all the way that I fell,’ suggesting that her shoe gouged out some of the waxy substance where she fell.” However, plaintiff admits that she did not see any wax on the floor before she fell and did not *407check her shoe for wax after she fell. Moreover, she did not personally see the ladies’ room floor waxed that day or at any time before and there were no photographs, wet clothes, or witnesses that could corroborate her conclusory assertions. Nor did plaintiff have any knowledge of the products used to clean the floor (see Galler v Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 63 NY2d 637, 639 [1984], affg 99 AD2d 720 [1st Dept 1984] [“evidence . . . insufficient to establish prima facie that what plaintiff slipped on was a wax residue” where plaintiff noticed a two foot streak on the floor where she fell and testified that, when she was leaving the hospital to which she had been taken after the accident, she saw a nurse scraping what looked like wax off of her shoe]).
Accordingly, I would affirm the grant of summary judgment in defendant’s favor.