Summary
In Septoff v La Shellda Maintenance Corp., 242 AD2d 618 (2nd Dept. 1997), this Court held that there is no requirement of notice where the defendant created the subject condition.
Summary of this case from Ruocco v. L-K Bennett Enters., LLCOpinion
September 22, 1997
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Shaw, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, and a new trial is granted, with costs to abide the event.
The plaintiff, Noralee Septoff, was injured when she slipped and fell on a substance on the floor in a store operated by the third-party defendant, Rock Bottom Inc. The defendant La Shellda Maintenance Corp. had been hired to strip the existing wax on the floors and to apply new wax. The plaintiffs contend that the slippery condition was created by the defendant's employees' use of a wax stripping material.
The trial court initially instructed the jury that the defendant could be found negligent if its employees created the dangerous condition and had notice of that condition. This instruction was incorrect, because there is no notice requirement where the defendant has created the dangerous condition ( see, Panagakos v. Greek Archdiocese, 213 A.D.2d 336; Ohanessian v. Chase Manhattan Realty Leasing Corp., 193 A.D.2d 567). Although the trial court properly agreed to give a modified instruction, the modified instruction may well have confused the jury and warrants reversal ( see, J.R. Loftus, Inc. v. White, 85 N.Y.2d 874; Cumbo v Valente, 118 A.D.2d 679). Accordingly, a new trial is ordered.
The plaintiffs' remaining contention is without merit ( see, Harvey v. Mazal Am. Partners, 79 N.Y.2d 218; People v. Pike, 131 A.D.2d 890).
Thompson, J.P., Pizzuto, Friedmann and Krausman, JJ., concur.