Opinion
10613N Index 15498813
12-19-2019
Luis RAMIREZ, Plaintiff–Respondent, v. A.W. & S. CONSTRUCTION CO., INC., et al., Defendants–Appellants.
Russo & Toner, LLP, New York (Daniel M. Schiavetta of counsel), for appellants. William Schwitzer & Associates, P.C., New York (D. Allen Zachary of counsel), for respondent.
Russo & Toner, LLP, New York (Daniel M. Schiavetta of counsel), for appellants.
William Schwitzer & Associates, P.C., New York (D. Allen Zachary of counsel), for respondent.
Acosta, P.J., Renwick, Manzanet–Daniels, Kapnick, Gonza´lez, JJ.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Manuel Mendez, J.), entered on or about March 5, 2019, which purported to deny defendants' motion for leave to reargue defendants' motion for summary judgment, but effectively granted reargument and adhered to its prior determination, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Issues of fact exist whether plaintiff was engaged in protected activity under Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6) at the time he was injured (see Gonzalez v. Paramount Group, Inc., 157 A.D.3d 427, 66 N.Y.S.3d 122 [1st Dept. 2018] ; Cardenas v. One State St., LLC, 68 A.D.3d 436, 890 N.Y.S.2d 41 [1st Dept. 2009] ). Similarly, there are factual issues whether defendant contractor Waldorf exercised supervision and control over plaintiff's work for purposes of Labor Law § 200 and common law negligence (see Mutadir v. 80–90 Maiden Lane Del LLC, 110 A.D.3d 641, 974 N.Y.S.2d 364 [1st Dept. 2013] ).