From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Enderby v. Keppler

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Jun 5, 1992
184 A.D.2d 1058 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)

Opinion

June 5, 1992

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Orleans County, Wolf, Jr., J.

Present — Callahan, J.P., Green, Lawton, Davis and Doerr, JJ.


Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly granted plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment against defendant Polick, the general contractor, on the issue of defendant's liability under Labor Law § 240 (1). Polick presented an estimate for the cost of the work, controlled the work and received payment for it. Labor Law § 240 (1) imposes a nondelegable duty on the general contractor to provide proper scaffolding and safety equipment and imposes absolute liability for a failure to do so (Heath v. Soloff Constr., 107 A.D.2d 507, 510-511). Polick's contention that Labor Law § 241-a applies to this action, raised for the first time on appeal, is not preserved for our review (see, Lister Elec. v. Incorporated Vil. of Cedarhurst, 108 A.D.2d 731, 733).

Supreme Court properly denied plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment against the homeowners. There is no question that the construction was on a single family home and that the remodeling was for additional living space. The Kepplers, as homeowners, are entitled to the exemption under Labor Law § 240 (1) (see, Cannon v. Putnam, 76 N.Y.2d 644, 649).


Summaries of

Enderby v. Keppler

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Jun 5, 1992
184 A.D.2d 1058 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)
Case details for

Enderby v. Keppler

Case Details

Full title:JAMES ENDERBY et al., Respondents-Appellants, v. PHILLIP D. KEPPLER et…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department

Date published: Jun 5, 1992

Citations

184 A.D.2d 1058 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)
584 N.Y.S.2d 364

Citing Cases

Bartoo v. Buell

The court further erred in denying defendant's motion for summary judgment to the extent that it sought…

Kneiss v. Sheehan Memorial Hospital

We affirm for reasons stated in the decision at Supreme Court. We add only that defendant's contention that…