Opinion
December 7, 1998
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Golden, J.).
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The plaintiff failed to establish that the defendants supervised or controlled the manner and method of the work performed by him pursuant to the parties' oral construction contract. Thus, the Supreme Court correctly found that, as the owners of one- and two-family dwellings, the defendants are exempt from the provisions of Labor Law §§ 240 Lab. and 241 Lab. and are not liable to the plaintiff for the alleged violations thereof ( see, Cannon v. Putnam, 76 N.Y.2d 644; Duclos v. Bisordi, 209 A.D.2d 376).
The plaintiff's remaining contentions are without merit.
Rosenblatt, J. P., Santucci, Altman and Friedmann, JJ., concur.