| Hansen v Trustees of M.E. Church of Glen Cove |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 04471 [51 AD3d 725] |
| May 13, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Franklin Hansen, Appellant, v Trustees of the MethodistEpiscopal Church of Glen Cove et al., Respondents. |
—[*1] Molod Spitz & DeSantis, P.C., New York, N.Y. (Marcy Sonneborn of counsel), forrespondents.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by hisbrief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Murphy, J.), datedOctober 10, 2006, as granted that branch of the defendants' motion which was for summaryjudgment dismissing the cause of action alleging common-law negligence.
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The defendants hired the plaintiff, inter alia, to repair portions of the roof of their churchbuilding and to replace the gutters and a rotted soffit. While the plaintiff was removing a gutter, aportion of the soffit fell, allegedly injuring him. He commenced this action, asserting claimsunder the Labor Law as well as a claim alleging common-law negligence. On appeal, his onlyargument is that the Supreme Court erred in granting that branch of the defendants' motion whichwas for summary judgment dismissing the common-law negligence cause of action. We affirmthe order insofar as appealed from.
Employers have a common-law duty to provide their employees with a safe place to work(see Gasper v Ford Motor Co., 13 NY2d 104, 110 [1963]). The duty, however, does notextend to hazards that are part of, or inherent in, the very work the employee is to perform ordefects the employee is hired to repair (id.; see Kowalsky v Conreco Co., 264 NY125, 129-130 [1934]; Wolfe v Teele, 223 AD2d 854 [1996]; Brugnano v MerrillLynch & Co., 216 AD2d 18, 19 [1995]; Senkbeil v Board of Educ. of City of N.Y.,[*2]23 AD2d 587, 589 [1965], affd 18 NY2d 789 [1966];cf. Rosciano v Royal Farms, 236 AD2d 599 [1997]). Here, the defendants establishedtheir entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting evidence sufficient to demonstratethat the plaintiff's alleged injuries were caused by the rotted soffit that he was hired to removeand replace (see Gasper v Ford Motor Co., 13 NY2d at 110; Wolfe v Teele, 223AD2d 854 [1996]; Senkbeil v Board of Educ. of City of N.Y., 23 AD2d at 589). Inopposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Zuckerman v City of NewYork, 49 NY2d 557, 562-563 [1980]). Fisher, J.P., Covello, Angiolillo and Belen, JJ.,concur.