Stejskal v Simons

2004 NYSlipOp 05485

June 24, 2004

Court of Appeals

As corrected through Wednesday, October 13, 2004

[*1]

Ivo Stejskal et al., Appellants, v Albert Simons III et al., Respondents. (And a Third-Party Action.)

Decided June 24, 2004

Stejskal v Simons, 309 AD2d 853, affirmed.

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

Profeta & Eisenstein, New York City (Fred R. Profeta, Jr., of counsel), for appellants.

DeCicco, Gibbons & McNamara, P.C., New York City (Dennis A. Breen of counsel), for respondents.

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs. The evidence unequivocally demonstrated that the sole purpose of the construction work was to convert what was a multiple dwelling into a one-family dwelling for the owners' use. Thus, defendant owners [*2]were entitled to avail themselves of the one- or two-family homeowner's exemption provided in Labor Law § 240 (1) and § 241 (see Khela v Neiger, 85 NY2d 333, 338 [1995]; Cannon v Putnam, 76 NY2d 644, 650 [1990]).

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges G.B. Smith, Ciparick, Rosenblatt, Graffeo, Read and R.S. Smith concur.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.4), order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.