Opinion
November 15, 1989
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Chautauqua County, Ricotta, J.
Present — Callahan, J.P., Denman, Pine, Balio and Lawton, JJ.
Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: As a general rule, leave to amend pleadings should be freely granted; in this case, however, the proposed amendment is devoid of merit, and the court did not abuse its discretion by considering the merits (see, Andersen v University of Rochester, 91 A.D.2d 851, appeal dismissed 59 N.Y.2d 968).
Plaintiff sought to amend his complaint to allege a violation of Labor Law § 240. Liability for a violation of this section cannot be imposed, however, where the contractor has no authority to supervise or control the plaintiff's activities (Russin v Picciano Son, 54 N.Y.2d 311; Reeves v Red Wing Co., 139 A.D.2d 935). The proposed amendment contains no allegation that defendant had authority to supervise or control plaintiff or his activities, and uncontroverted evidentiary materials submitted on the motion demonstrate that such authority did not exist. Plaintiff's claim that defendant exercised control by furnishing the ladder from which he fell is without merit (see, Magrath v Migliore Constr. Co., 139 A.D.2d 893).