Opinion
2012-05-8
Michael THOMPSON, et al., Plaintiffs–Appellants, v. BFP 300 MADISON II, LLC, et al., Defendants–Respondents.
McMahon, Martine & Gallagher, LLP, Brooklyn (Patrick W. Brophy of counsel), for appellants. Malapero & Prisco, LLP, New York (George Mahoney of counsel), for respondents.
McMahon, Martine & Gallagher, LLP, Brooklyn (Patrick W. Brophy of counsel), for appellants. Malapero & Prisco, LLP, New York (George Mahoney of counsel), for respondents.
MAZZARELLI, J.P., SAXE, MOSKOWITZ, RENWICK, FREEDMAN, JJ.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol R. Edmead, J.), entered May 2, 2011, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the causes of action pursuant to Labor Law § 200 and § 241(6) and for common-law negligence, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Plaintiff injured his hand while moving a large fan coil box, which he did without the assistance of others. The court properly dismissed the Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims as against all defendants, since plaintiff's injury was caused not by a dangerous condition on the work site, but by the method or manner in which he chose to accomplish the task of moving the object ( see Lombardi v. Stout, 80 N.Y.2d 290, 295, 590 N.Y.S.2d 55, 604 N.E.2d 117 [1992]; LaRosa v. Internap Network Servs. Corp., 83 A.D.3d 905, 908–909, 921 N.Y.S.2d 294 [2011] ). Moreover, the record demonstrates that defendants exercised no supervision or control over plaintiff's work ( see Comes v. New York State Elec. & Gas Corp., 82 N.Y.2d 876, 609 N.Y.S.2d 168, 631 N.E.2d 110 [1993] ).
The Labor Law § 241(6) claim was also properly dismissed. The Industrial Code provisions on which plaintiffs relied involved tripping hazards (12 NYCRR 23–1.7[e] ), sharp objects ( id.), and material piles (12 NYCRR 23–2.1[a] ), and were inapplicable to this case ( see Waitkus v. Metropolitan Hous. Partners, 50 A.D.3d 260, 854 N.Y.S.2d 388 [2008]; Castillo v. Starrett City, 4 A.D.3d 320, 321, 772 N.Y.S.2d 74 [2004] ).
We have considered plaintiff's remaining contentions and find them unavailing.