Opinion
December 7, 1998
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Golar, J.).
Ordered that the cross-appeal is dismissed as academic, without costs or disbursements; and it is further,
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.
For an owner of a one or two-family residential dwelling to be liable under Labor Law §§ 240 Lab. and 241 Lab., the plaintiff must prove that the owner "directed or controlled" the manner in which the work is performed (Labor Law §§ 240 Lab., 241 Lab. [6]; see, Kolakowski v. Feeney, 204 A.D.2d 693). Here, the defendant James Stefatos merely told the plaintiff Panagiotis Stamboulis which, parts of the house to paint and the colors he wanted the house painted. Under these circumstances, the necessary direction and control was not shown and therefore the trial court properly granted summary judgment to the defendants ( see, Patterson v. Pasa, 203 A.D.2d 866).
There is also no merit to the plaintiffs' claim that Labor Law § 240 Lab. applies because of the presence of a shed on the defendants' property, which was used to store commercial equipment. The painting of the house was in no way related to the commercial purpose of the shed. Therefore, the trial court did not err in granting summary judgment to the defendants dismissing the Labor Law § 240 Lab. cause of action ( see, Bartoo v. Buell, 87 N.Y.2d 362).
We agree with the third-party defendant that it could properly move for summary judgment against the plaintiffs ( see, CPLR 1008). However, in light of the fact that we are affirming the Supreme Court's order granting summary judgment to the defendants, dismissing the causes of action under Labor Law §§ 240 Lab. and 241 Lab., the third-party defendant's cross appeal must be dismissed as academic.
The parties' remaining contentions are without merit.
O'Brien, J. P., Pizzuto, Joy and Goldstein, JJ., concur.