| Norman v Welliver McGuire, Inc. |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 01478 [48 AD3d 945] |
| February 21, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| Ronald F. Norman, Jr. et al., Appellants, v Welliver McGuire, Inc.,Respondent. |
—[*1] Law Office of Joseph D. Callery, Syracuse (James C. Brady of counsel), forrespondent.
Rose, J. Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Mulvey, J.), entered November 6, 2006in Tompkins County, which granted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing thecomplaint.
Alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1) and § 241 (6) in theircomplaint, plaintiffs commenced this action to recover for injuries sustained by plaintiff RonaldF. Norman, Jr. due to the method he and a coworker were using to raise the level of a scaffold ata construction site. Norman's employer was a prime contractor on the construction project.Defendant, also a prime contractor on the project, moved for summary judgment dismissing thecomplaint in its entirety, arguing that, among other things, it did not supervise, direct or controlthe work in which Norman was engaged. Plaintiffs opposed dismissal of their cause of actionbased upon Labor Law § 200 only, arguing that there is some evidence that defendantexercised supervision and control over Norman's work. Supreme Court found that the evidencepresented by plaintiffs did not establish defendant's obligation or authority to direct or control thework that caused Norman's injury, and dismissed the complaint. Plaintiffs appeal and we affirm.
As noted by Supreme Court, a contractor has no liability under Labor Law § 200 or thecommon law in the absence of evidence that it exercised some supervisory control over theperformance of the work (see Adair vBBL Constr. Servs., LLC, 25 AD3d 971, 972 [2006], lv denied 6 NY3d 714[2006]; Biance v Columbia WashingtonVentures, LLC, 12 AD3d 926, 927 [2004]). The record here supports Supreme Court'sconclusion that conversations about safety [*2]betweendefendant's employee and Norman's supervisor fail to show that defendant had any authority tocontrol the injury-producing work.
Cardona, P.J., Peters, Spain and Kane, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, withcosts.