| Bedneau v New York Hosp. Med. Ctr. of Queens |
| 2007 NY Slip Op 06616 [43 AD3d 845] |
| September 11, 2007 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Elwin Bedneau et al., Appellants, v New York HospitalMedical Center of Queens, Respondent. |
—[*1] Farley & Glockner, LLP, Mineola, N.Y. (Graceann Farley of counsel), forrespondent.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal, as limited bytheir brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Kitzes, J.), enteredOctober 20, 2006, as granted those branches of the defendant's motion which were for summaryjudgment dismissing the causes of action pursuant to Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 (6)and to recover damages for common-law negligence.
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
During the course of repairing a leaking boiler at the defendant's premises, the injuredplaintiff slipped and fell on water that had accumulated on the floor of the boiler room as a resultof the leak and the additional release of water during the repair. The Supreme Court properlygranted that branch of the defendant's motion which was to dismiss the plaintiffs' common-lawnegligence and Labor Law § 200 causes of action. The injured plaintiff cannot recoveragainst the defendant for common-law negligence or under Labor Law § 200, since he wasinjured by the condition he had undertaken to remedy (see Kowalsky v Conreco Co., 264NY 125, 128 [1934]; Skinner v G & T Realty Corp. of N.Y., 232 AD2d 627 [1996]).Further, there is no evidence that the defendant exercised any supervisory control over, or hadany input into, how the injured plaintiff's work was performed (see Smith v 499 FashionTower, LLC, 38 AD3d 523, 524-525 [2007]; Cun-En Lin v Holy Family Monuments, 18 AD3d 800, 801 [2005];Skinner v G & T Realty Corp. of N.Y., supra). In opposition to the defendant's primafacie establishment of entitlement to summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 200and [*2]common-law negligence causes of action, the plaintiffsfailed to raise a triable issue of fact.
The Supreme Court also properly granted that branch of the defendant's motion which wasfor summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 241 (6) cause of action because theprotections of Labor Law § 241 (6) do not apply to the simple repair of an applianceunrelated to construction, demolition, or excavation (see Esposito v New York City Indus. Dev. Agency, 1 NY3d 526,528 [2003]; Nagel v D & R Realty Corp., 99 NY2d 98, 101-103 [2002]; Gleason v Gottlieb, 35 AD3d 355,356 [2006]; Hatfield v Bridgedale,LLC, 28 AD3d 608, 610 [2006]; Morzillo v State of New York , 26 AD3d 315, 316 [2006]). Inopposition to the defendant's prima facie establishment of its entitlement to summary judgmentdismissing the Labor Law § 241 (6) cause of action, the plaintiff failed to raise a triableissue of fact. Crane, J.P., Goldstein, Dillon and Carni, JJ., concur.