Brener v Queens Boulevard Extended Care Facility Corp.
Categories
Judges
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
Premises liability involving an alleged slip-and-fall on a hallway floor in a skilled nursing facility, specifically whether the floor was made dangerously slippery by negligent waxing.
The Supreme Court, Kings County, denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
The Appellate Division reversed the order denying summary judgment and dismissed the complaint.
The defendants established that there was no negligent application of wax and therefore no dangerous condition. The plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact because her opposing affidavit appeared to contradict her prior deposition testimony and was treated as creating only a feigned issue. Without proof of a dangerous condition, notice was irrelevant.
Background
The plaintiff alleged that she was injured in August 2016 when she slipped and fell in a hallway at a skilled nursing facility owned and operated by the defendants. She brought a personal injury action claiming the hallway floor was dangerously slippery, allegedly due to wax or polish. After discovery, the defendants moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
Lower Court Decision
The Supreme Court denied the defendants' summary judgment motion, allowing the plaintiff's negligence claim to proceed.
Appellate Division Reversal
The Appellate Division held that the defendants made a prima facie showing that the floor had not been negligently waxed and that no dangerous condition existed. It further held that the plaintiff's affidavit in opposition was insufficient because it appeared tailored to avoid her earlier deposition testimony. The court therefore reversed and granted summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
Legal Significance
The decision reinforces New York slip-and-fall law that liability for a waxed or polished floor requires proof that the defendant knew or should have known the product could make the floor dangerously slippery, or proof of negligent application leaving a dangerous residue. A shiny or smooth floor alone is not enough. It also underscores that a party cannot defeat summary judgment by submitting an affidavit that feigns factual disputes by contradicting earlier sworn testimony.
In a floor-wax slip-and-fall case, a plaintiff must produce evidence of negligent application or another actual dangerous condition; absent that, and especially where opposition relies on a contradictory affidavit, summary judgment for the property owner is appropriate.