Pollack, Pollack, Isaac & DeCicco, LLP, New York (Brian J. Isaac of counsel), for appellant.
Havkins Rosenfeld Ritzert & Varriale, LLP, White Plains (Tara C. Fappiano of counsel), for respondent.
Opinion
Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Lucindo Suarez, J.), entered August 12, 2014, which granted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion denied.
Triable issues of fact regarding whether defendant caused or created the wet stair condition on which plaintiff allegedly slipped and fell precludes the grant of summary judgment. Although defendant's superintendent denied mopping the stairs on the morning of plaintiff's accident, as it would have been inconsistent with his established cleaning routine and schedule, plaintiff's testimony that mopping was performed by different persons, at different times, on random days, conflicted with the superintendent's claim as to the existence of a mopping schedule. Furthermore, rather than rely on speculation as to causation, plaintiff's theory is based upon her observation that the condition was soapy, dirty, and wet, resembling what
one would see when using a dirty mop, and the presence of a mop, bucket, and “wet floor” sign in the nearby lobby. Defendant's creation of the alleged condition could be reasonably inferred from such testimony (
see
Tucker v. New York City Hous. Auth., 127 A.D.3d 619,
8 N.Y.S.3d 141 1st Dept.2015;
Brown v. Simone Dev. Co., L.L.C., 83 A.D.3d 544,
922 N.Y.S.2d 21 1st Dept.2011 ).