Opinion
Submitted April 16, 1999
June 1, 1999
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Diblasi, J.), entered April 24, 1998, as, upon reargument, granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
Sacks and Sacks, New York, N.Y. (Scott Singer of counsel), for appellant.
Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman Dicker, LLP, New York, N Y (David S. Sheiffer and Vanessa L. David of counsel), for respondents.
FRED T. SANTUCCI, J.P., DANIEL W. JOY, GLORIA GOLDSTEIN, ROBERT W. SCHMIDT, JJ.
DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The plaintiff was injured when a hoist, which he was using to lift an architectural structure called a lintel, tipped and struck the backs of his legs. The plaintiff commenced this action to recover damages for alleged violations of Labor Law §§ 240 Lab. (1), 241 Lab. (6), and 200 Lab., and upon a theory of common-law negligence. By decision and order of this court dated October 20, 1997, the causes of action asserted under Labor Law §§ 240 Lab. (1) and 241 Lab. (6) were dismissed ( see, Rubino v. Fisher Reese W.P. Assocs., 243 A.D.2d 620). Thereafter, the defendants moved to reargue their prior motion for summary judgment to dismiss the remaining causes of action, and the court granted the motion. We affirm.
Contrary to the plaintiffs contention, there was no evidence that the defendants exercised any direction or control over the manner in which the plaintiff performed his work ( see, Greenwood v. Shearson, Lehman Hutton, 238 A.D.2d 311; Lattanzi v. International Bus. Machs. Corp., 240 A.D.2d 475). Accordingly, the court properly granted summary judgment dismissing the complaint.