Opinion
October 9, 1997
Appeal from Supreme Court, New York County (Emily Jane Goodman, J.).
In this action to recover personal injuries sustained as a result of a work-related accident, the court properly dismissed plaintiff's various Labor Law claims due to the absence of evidence indicating control of the work by any of the moving defendants ( see, Russin v. Picciano Son, 54 N.Y.2d 311). The record establishes that plaintiff's work was supervised directly and solely by his own employer, who had been retained as the general contractor, and there is no evidence supporting plaintiff's contention that defendants were "agents" of the owner of the construction site, as contemplated by Labor Law §§ 240 and 241. Defendants' activities at the job site did not constitute the exercise of the requisite control ( see, Carter v Vollmer Assocs., 196 A.D.2d 754). We have considered plaintiffs' other contentions and find them to be without merit.
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Rosenberger, Ellerin and Nardelli, JJ.