DEFENSE SUJMMARY JUDMENT GRANTED IN SLIP-AND-FALL ACCIDENT CASE; PLAINTIFF CONTRADICTED HER OWN EXPERT

Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York

Case: Owens v. Cooper Square Realty

Date: Jan. 19, 2012

From: New York attorney Gary E. Rosenberg (personal injury and accident attorney and lawyer; serving Queens; Queens accident lawyer)

Comment: Slip-and-fall indoors. Defense moves for summary judgment. Says the floor was clean and dry and, I don't know if I believe this, the building superintendent testified that he swept and mopped three times per week, including on the day of the accident -- and he waited for the floor to dry before moving on to the next floor.

What really dooms this plaintiff's case is her testimony that she slipped due to "overwaxing," -- tough to prove -- which is contradicted by her expert's opinion that she slipped on a wet, soapy floor. Game over for this accident victim; summary judgment granted to the defense and this case is dismissed.

*********************************************************************

RELATED POSTS:

SLIP-AND-FALL ACCIDENT IN LAUNDRY ROOM DISMISSED: NO "NOTICE" TO BUILDING OWNER & MANAGER; NO "DUTY OF CARE" OR "NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION" BY PARENTS (Posted by Queens accident lawyer Gary E. Rosenberg on Dec 15, 2011)

NO "NOTICE" OF RAISED RUG ON FLOOR; CASE DISMISSED ON DEFENSE SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION (Posted Queens accident lawyer by Gary E. Rosenberg on Nov 5, 2011)

*********************************************************************

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Milton A. Tingling, J.), entered March 28, 2011, which, in this action to recover for personal injuries sustained when plaintiff allegedly slipped and fell on a floor in a building managed by defendant Cooper Square Realty (Cooper Square), denied Cooper Square's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against it, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the motion granted, and the complaint dismissed as against Cooper Square. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.

Defendant made a prima facie showing that it did not create or have notice of the alleged slippery condition of the floor (see Katz v. New York Hosp., 170 A.D.2d 345 [1991]). Indeed, defendant's porter testified that he swept and mopped the area three times a week, including on the morning of the accident, and waited for the floor to dry before proceeding to another floor. Defendant's handyman testified that he inspected the area immediately after the accident and found that it was dry. Both the porter and handyman testified that there had been no complaints concerning the area before the accident.

Plaintiff, however, failed to raise a triable issue of fact. She testified that the floor was shiny, slippery, and overwaxed or overbuffed. Yet, in opposition to the summary judgment motion, plaintiff relies on her expert's affidavit that states the accident was caused by a soapy water residue on the floor, left after the porters' mopping. The expert's opinion contradicts plaintiff's testimony regarding the condition of the floor at the time of her accident. Moreover, the affidavit is speculative (DeLeon v. New York City Hous. Auth., 65 AD3d 930 [2009]; Bean v. Ruppert Towers Hous. Co., 274 A.D.2d 305, 307_08 [2000]; Lindeman v. Vecchione Constr. Corp., 275 A.D.2d 392 [2000]).

Categories