In Healy v. ARP Cable, 299 AD2d 152 [1st Dept 2002] the circumstantial evidence was also sufficient to create an issue of fact as to whether the defendant created a dangerous condition by mopping. In that case, the plaintiff was allegedly injured in a fall on a wet staircase (id. at 153). Although no witness observed the defendant actually mopping, the terms of the defendant's contract required it to "wash and wax or spray buff staircase landings" every other Sunday (id. at 155). The plaintiff also fell on a Monday morning before 8:00 A.M (id.). Additionally, the plaintiff's co-workers testified that when they saw the plaintiff lying on the stairs after the fall, it appeared that the stairway looked wet, as if someone had just finished mopping, and that there were no warning signs on the stairs (id.).