Opinion
Submitted February 22, 2000.
April 13, 2000.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants Daniel J. Rose and Thomas Guarascio appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Doyle, J.), dated May 4, 1999, as denied those branches of their motion which were for summary judgment dismissing so much of the complaint as seeks to recover damages based on violations of Labor Law §§ 200 and 241(6) insofar as asserted against them.
Hammill, O'Brien, Croutier Dempsey, P.C., Smithtown, N Y (Kristin Blair Tyler of counsel), for appellants.
Siben Siben, LLP, Bay Shore, N.Y. (Alan G. Faber of counsel), for respondents.
WILLIAM D. FRIEDMANN, J.P., GABRIEL M. KRAUSMAN, LEO F. McGINITY, SANDRA J. FEUERSTEIN, JJ.
DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The Supreme Court correctly denied those branches of the appellants' motion which were for summary judgment dismissing so much of the complaint as seeks to recover damages based on violations of Labor Law §§ 200 Lab. and 241 Lab.(6) insofar as asserted against them. A triable issue of fact exists as to whether the appellant Thomas Guarascio acted as the agent for the appellant Daniel J. Rose and exercised sufficient supervisory control over the worksite so as to render the single-family exemption under Labor Law § 241 Lab.(6) inapplicable (see, Cannon v. Putnam, 76 N.Y.2d 644 ;Kenny v. Fuller Co., 87 A.D.2d 183 ; Seaman v. A.B. Chance Co., 197 A.D.2d 612 ).