Opinion
2002-06221
Submitted September 11, 2003
October 27, 2003.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant Joy Construction, Inc., appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hubsher, J.), dated May 22, 2002, as denied that branch of its motion which was to dismiss the causes of action to recover damages based upon Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence insofar as asserted against it.
Cerussi Spring, White Plains, N.Y. (Peter Riggs and Peter Morris of counsel), for appellant.
Denis C. Guerin, New York, N.Y. (Thomas Miller of counsel), for respondent.
Before: MYRIAM J. ALTMAN, J.P., GABRIEL M. KRAUSMAN, GLORIA GOLDSTEIN, DANIEL F. LUCIANO, JJ.
DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, that branch of the motion which was to dismiss the causes of action to recover damages based upon Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence insofar as asserted against the appellant is granted, and those causes of action are dismissed.
The appellant made a prima facie showing of entitlement to summary judgment dismissing the causes of action to recover damages based upon Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence insofar as asserted against it by submitting evidence that it had adequate security to protect workers in the form of a solid metal fence surrounding the construction site, and further, that there had been no assaults on workers at the construction site or threats directed towards workers that would put it on notice that security was inadequate. In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact, instead improperly relying exclusively on the ambient neighborhood crime in the surrounding community and on the EBT testimony of the appellant's supervisor that the neighborhood was dangerous ( see Miller v. State of New York, 62 N.Y.2d 506, 513-514; Nallan v. Helmsley-Spear, Inc., 50 N.Y.2d 507, 519; Novikova v. Greenbriar Owners Corp., 258 A.D.2d 149; Zdrojeski v. Gramercy Ct. Assocs., 195 A.D.2d 552). Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted that branch of the appellant's motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the causes of action to recover damages based upon Labor Law § 200 and common law negligence insofar as asserted against it.
In light of the foregoing, we need not reach the appellant's remaining contentions.
ALTMAN, J.P., KRAUSMAN, GOLDSTEIN and LUCIANO, JJ., concur.