Opinion
June 20, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Sangiorgio, J.).
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
Contrary to the plaintiffs' contentions, the Supreme Court properly awarded summary judgment to the defendant on their strict liability causes of action pursuant to Labor Laws §§ 240 and 241. The defendant established that he owned and occupied the two-family home from which the plaintiff Duane Beckford fell, did not direct or control the manner of the roofing work, and that no commercial activities were conducted there (see, Farmer v. Davidson, 203 A.D.2d 513; Spinillo v Strober Long Is. Bldg. Material Ctrs., 192 A.D.2d 515; Kelly v Bruno Son, 190 A.D.2d 777; cf., Van Amerogen v. Donnini, 78 N.Y.2d 880). Likewise, the court properly determined that the defendant had established his entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the plaintiffs' common law negligence claims, codified in Labor Law § 200, since the defendant demonstrated that he had neither actual nor constructive notice of the allegedly dangerous condition of the wood beneath the shingles covering his home's roof (see, Lombardi v. Stout, 80 N.Y.2d 290; Leon v. Peppe Realty Corp., 190 A.D.2d 400). Moreover, it is well settled that "[a]n owner's duty to provide a safe workplace `does not extend to injuries arising from a defect in the contractor's own * * * methods or through negligent acts of the contractor occurring as a detail of the work'" (Kelly v. Bruno Son, 190 A.D.2d 777, 778, supra, quoting Rimoldi v. Schanzer, 147 A.D.2d 541, 546; see also, Lombardi v. Stout, supra). Rather, where such a claim arises from a contractor's methods or materials, an owner may only be liable under Labor Law § 200 if he exercised some supervisory control over the operation (see, Ross v Curtis-Palmer Hydro-Elec. Co., 81 N.Y.2d 494, 505; Mendoza v Cornwall Hill Estates, 199 A.D.2d 368). Here it is uncontroverted that the defendant exercised no supervisory control. He hired an amateur handyman to finish shingling the roof after a prior contractor had to cease work due to health problems. In the absence of any evidence that the defendant was aware of the allegedly deteriorated condition of the roof or that he controlled the manner of the work, the defendant is not liable pursuant to Labor Law § 200.
We have reviewed the plaintiffs' remaining contentions and find them to be without merit (see, Nahles v. County of Nassau, 180 A.D.2d 671; Dabbs v. City of Peekskill, 178 A.D.2d 577; see also, Peerless Ins. Co. v. Casey, 194 A.D.2d 411; Martin v. Triborough Bridge Tunnel Auth., 180 A.D.2d 596, mod on rearg on other grounds 182 A.D.2d 545). Thompson, J.P., Rosenblatt, Miller and Ritter, JJ., concur.