| Lawson v OneSource Facility Servs., Inc. |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 04842 [51 AD3d 983] |
| May 27, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Annie Lawson, Respondent, v OneSource FacilityServices, Inc., Appellant. |
—[*1] Baker, Leshko Saline & Blosser, LLP, White Plains, N.Y. (Mitchell J. Baker of counsel), forrespondent.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from an order ofthe Supreme Court, Westchester County (Giacomo, J.), entered January 30, 2007, which deniedits motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law and the facts, with costs, and the defendant'smotion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted.
While at her workplace, the plaintiff allegedly slipped and fell on a freshly mopped hallwayfloor. The plaintiff commenced this action against the defendant OneSource Facility Services,Inc. which provided janitorial services to the building, alleging that it had negligently performedits duties and caused her injuries. At the close of discovery, the defendant moved for summaryjudgment dismissing the complaint. The Supreme Court denied the motion on the ground that, insupport of its contention that it did not owe the plaintiff a duty of care, the defendant had failedto establish, prima facie, that it had not entirely displaced the building owner's duty to safelymaintain the premises, and because in opposition to the defendant's prima facie showing that itused reasonable care in how it cleaned the hallway floor, the plaintiff raised a triable issue offact. We reverse.
Generally, an independent contractor will not be held liable for the injuries of noncontractingthird parties (see Espinal v Melville Snow Contrs., 98 NY2d 136, 138 [2002]). Theplaintiff contends that two exceptions to this general rule are applicable to the instant case:"where the contracting party, in failing to exercise reasonable care in the performance of hisduties, launche[s] a force or [*2]instrument of harm. . . [and] where the contracting party has entirely displaced the other party's duty tomaintain the premises safely" (id. at 140 [citations and internal quotation marksomitted]).
The defendant met its prima facie burden of establishing that it did not displace the buildingowner's duty to safely maintain the premises by submitting two affidavits from its vice-presidentof operations averring that the building owner retained its own operations and maintenance staffand that the defendant's employees took orders from that staff (see Roveccio v Ry Mgt. Co., Inc., 29AD3d 562, 562-563 [2006]; Romeov Ronald McDonald House, 25 AD3d 681, 683 [2006]; Hagen v Gilman Mgt. Corp., 4 AD3d330, 331 [2004]). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact (cf. Rapone v Di-Gara Realty Corp., 22AD3d 654, 656 [2005]).
Further, although the defendant did not establish prima facie that it did not create adangerous condition, the wet hallway floor upon which the plaintiff allegedly slipped and fellwas readily observable by a reasonable use of the plaintiff's senses, and the condition of the floorbeing mopped was not inherently dangerous (see Ramsey v Mt. Vernon Bd. of Educ., 32 AD3d 1007 [2006]).Accordingly, the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint shouldhave been granted. Mastro, J.P., Rivera, Angiolillo and McCarthy, JJ., concur.