Opinion
2013-06-12
Jose ALVAREZ, appellant, v. HUDSON VALLEY REALTY CORP., respondent.
Davidson & Cohen, P.C., Rockville Centre, N.Y. (Robin Mary Heaney of counsel), for appellant. Gambeski & Frum, Elmsford, N.Y. (Donald L. Frum of counsel), for respondent.
Davidson & Cohen, P.C., Rockville Centre, N.Y. (Robin Mary Heaney of counsel), for appellant. Gambeski & Frum, Elmsford, N.Y. (Donald L. Frum of counsel), for respondent.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (O.Bellantoni, J.), dated June 8, 2012, which granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
Contrary to the plaintiff's contentions, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The defendant demonstrated its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the causes of action asserting violations of Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6) by establishing that it was an abutting property owner with no property interest in the premises upon which the plaintiff was injured, and it neither contracted for nor controlled the construction work on the premises ( see Guryev v. Tomchinsky, 20 N.Y.3d 194, 957 N.Y.S.2d 677, 981 N.E.2d 273;Scaparo v. Village of Ilion, 13 N.Y.3d 864, 893 N.Y.S.2d 823, 921 N.E.2d 590;Ferluckaj v. Goldman Sachs & Co., 12 N.Y.3d 316, 880 N.Y.S.2d 879, 908 N.E.2d 869;Cortez v. Northeast Realty Holdings, LLC, 78 A.D.3d 754, 911 N.Y.S.2d 151;Ryba v. Almeida, 27 A.D.3d 718, 815 N.Y.S.2d 623;Billman v. CLF Mgt., 19 A.D.3d 346, 796 N.Y.S.2d 151). Moreover, the defendant demonstrated its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the causes of action alleging common-law negligence and violation of Labor Law § 200 by establishing that it did not own, occupy, or control the premises ( see Cortez v. Northeast Realty Holdings, LLC, 78 A.D.3d 754, 911 N.Y.S.2d 151;Ryba v. Almeida, 27 A.D.3d 718, 815 N.Y.S.2d 623), and that it did not have the authority to supervise or control the manner in which the work was performed ( see Markey v. C.F.M.M. Owners Corp., 51 A.D.3d 734, 858 N.Y.S.2d 293;Kwang Ho Kim v. D & W Shin Realty Corp., 47 A.D.3d 616, 852 N.Y.S.2d 138). The plaintifffailed to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition to the motion ( see Alfonso v. Pacific Classon Realty, LLC, 101 A.D.3d 768, 769, 956 N.Y.S.2d 111).