Opinion
2003-04353.
Decided April 12, 2004.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from so much of an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hurkin-Torres, J.), dated January 9, 2003, as granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and dismissed the complaint.
Panken Besterman Winer Becker Sherman, LLP (Howard B. Sherman and Pollack, Pollack, Isaac De Cicco, New York, N.Y. [Brian J. Isaac] of counsel), for appellant.
Jacobowitz, Garfinkel Lesman, New York, N.Y. (Fiedelman McGaw, Jericho, N.Y. [Andrew Zajac] of counsel), for respondent.
Before: MYRIAM J. ALTMAN, J.P., ANITA R. FLORIO, DANIEL F. LUCIANO, WILLIAM F. MASTRO, JJ.
DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order and judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The defendant demonstrated its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting evidence that it did not supervise and control the asbestos abatement work performed by the plaintiff ( see Russin v. Picciano Son, 54 N.Y.2d 311; Morris v. Pepe, 283 A.D.2d 558; Mocarska v. 200 Madison Assocs., 262 A.D.2d 163; Sabato v. New York Life Ins. Co., 259 A.D.2d 535; Reid v. Lehrer McGovern Bovis, 248 A.D.2d 324; cf. Kenny v. Fuller Co., 87 A.D.2d 183). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Thus, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint ( see Alvarez v. Prospect Hosp., 68 N.Y.2d 320).
ALTMAN, J.P., FLORIO, LUCIANO and MASTRO, JJ., concur.