Opinion
3600, 103813/09.
04-20-2017
Angel ALVARADO also known as Angel Albarado, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. FRENCH COUNCIL LLC, et al., Defendants–Respondents.
Sim & Record, LLP, Bayside (Sang J. Sim of counsel), for appellant. Mischel & Horn, PC, New York (Scott T. Horn of counsel), for French Council LLC, respondent. Kaufman Borgeest & Ryan LLP, Valhalla (Edward J. Guardaro, Jr. of counsel), for Lowell Hotel Properties, LLC, Lowell Hotel Associates, L.P., and Bruce Caporusso, respondents. Law Office of James J. Toomey, New York (Evy L. Kazansky of counsel), for Kensico Properties, N.V. Inc., respondent.
Sim & Record, LLP, Bayside (Sang J. Sim of counsel), for appellant.
Mischel & Horn, PC, New York (Scott T. Horn of counsel), for French Council LLC, respondent.
Kaufman Borgeest & Ryan LLP, Valhalla (Edward J. Guardaro, Jr. of counsel), for Lowell Hotel Properties, LLC, Lowell Hotel Associates, L.P., and Bruce Caporusso, respondents.Law Office of James J. Toomey, New York (Evy L. Kazansky of counsel), for Kensico Properties, N.V. Inc., respondent.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert D. Kalish, J.), entered February 19, 2016, which granted defendants' motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and denied plaintiff's cross motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability on his Labor Law § 240(1) claim, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Plaintiff was injured when, while doing plastering work during the course of a renovation of a residence, he fell approximately six feet from a makeshift scaffold. The record shows that plaintiff's Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims, which were premised on the theory that plaintiff's injuries arose from the means and methods of his work, were properly dismissed. Plaintiff testified that his employer instructed him on the tasks that he was to perform, and there is no evidence that defendants exercised any supervision or control over plaintiff's work (see Howard v. Turner Constr. Co., 134 A.D.3d 523, 524–525, 21 N.Y.S.3d 251 [1st Dept.2015] ). Furthermore, plaintiff's Labor Law § 240(1) and § 241(6) claims were not viable in light of the homeowner's exemptions set forth in the statutes (see Bartoo v. Buell, 87 N.Y.2d 362, 368–369, 639 N.Y.S.2d 778, 662 N.E.2d 1068 [1996] ; Farias v. Simon, 122 A.D.3d 466, 997 N.Y.S.2d 28 [1st Dept.2014] ).
ACOSTA, J.P., RICHTER, ANDRIAS, KAHN, GESMER, JJ., concur.