| Morris v C & F Bldrs., Inc. |
| 2011 NY Slip Op 06180 [87 AD3d 792] |
| August 4, 2011 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| Jeremy Morris, Appellant, v C & F Builders, Inc.,Respondent, et al., Defendants. |
—[*1] Shantz & Belkin, Latham (Derek L. Hayden of counsel), for respondent.
Mercure, J.P. Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Reynolds Fitzgerald, J.), enteredOctober 26, 2010 in Delaware County, which, among other things, partially granted a crossmotion by defendant C & F Builders, Inc. for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
Defendants James Meehan and Rachel Meehan hired various contractors to construct aresidence, including defendant George C. Squires, an electrical contractor. Squires, in turn,employed plaintiff, who was injured at the work site when he fell through an opening in the floorwhere a staircase was to be installed. Plaintiff commenced this action alleging claims ofcommon-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 and 241 against,among others, defendant C & F Builders, Inc., the framing contractor on the project. Followingjoinder of issue and discovery, plaintiff moved for partial summary judgment on his Labor Law§ 240 (1) claim, and C & F Builders cross-moved for summary judgment dismissing thecomplaint and all claims against it. As is relevant here, Supreme Court granted C & F Builders'cross motion to the extent of dismissing plaintiff's Labor Law §§ 200, 240 and 241claims against it.[FN*] Plaintiff appeals and we affirm.[*2]
There is no question that "the absolute liability imposedupon owners and general contractors pursuant to Labor Law § 240 (1) and § 241 (6)does not apply to prime contractors having no authority to supervise or control the work beingperformed at the time of the injury" (Hornicek v William H. Lane, Inc., 265 AD2d 631,631-632 [1999]; see Russin v Louis N. Picciano & Son, 54 NY2d 311, 317-318 [1981];Soskin v Scharff, 309 AD2d 1102, 1104 [2003]). Likewise, liability cannot be imposedunder Labor Law § 200 where a defendant lacked "the authority to control the activitybringing about the injury" (Russin v Louis N. Picciano & Son, 54 NY2d at 317; seeRizzuto v L.A. Wenger Contr. Co., 91 NY2d 343, 352 [1998]; Soshinsky v CornellUniv., 268 AD2d 947, 947 [2000]).
Here, C & F Builders was a prime contractor and did not coordinate or supervise theelectrical work on the premises. Indeed, both Squires and James Meehan testified that Squireswas solely responsible for how the electrical work was done and could come and go as hepleased. Moreover, while it is far from clear that C & F Builders had any workers on the sitewhen plaintiff was injured, plaintiff indicated that they played no role in his work when theywere present. Inasmuch as C & F Builders had no control over plaintiff's work and had no duty,contractual or otherwise, to enforce safety standards at the work site, we agree with SupremeCourt that it was entitled to partial summary judgment dismissing plaintiff's Labor Law§§ 200, 240 and 241 claims against it (see Cook v Thompkins, 305 AD2d847, 847-848 [2003]; Decotes v Merritt Meridian Corp., 245 AD2d 864, 866 [1997];cf. Paolangeli v Cornell Univ., 296 AD2d 691, 693 [2002]).
Plaintiff's remaining contentions are rendered academic in light of the foregoing.
Rose, Lahtinen, Kavanagh and Garry, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, withcosts.
Footnote *: Supreme Court's denial of aseparate summary judgment motion by the Meehans is not at issue on this appeal.