Harry Steinberg and Steven Prystowsky obtained the reversal of an order denying a motion for summary judgment in a case in which plaintiff, a building cleaner, claimed he slipped and fell in a men's room moments after he entered it to clean it. The Appellate Division, First Department, reversed the trial court's denial of summary judgment, holding that the complaint should be dismissed because (a) the building owner and manager defendants established that they had no notice of the claimed wet floor condition; (b) a claim cannot be stated based upon the argument that a floor is either inherently slippery or unusually slippery when wet; and (c) plaintiff could not state a claim based upon an injury caused by the very condition he had been hired to remedy. This lengthy decision reststes in clear terms several rules that are important in the defense of slip-and-fall cases, including that lack of notice can be established by showing that the plaintiff cannot establish how or why the condition came into being and how long it had been there; that a claim cannot be stated merely by claiming that a mable or tile floor is unusually slippery when wet and, most important that a cleaner or other worker hired to remedy a condition cannot state a claim based upon negligence for the condition that the worker was required to remediate.

Waiters v. Northern Trust Co., ___ A.D.3d ___, ___ N.Y.S.2d ___ (1st Dep't 2006).