| Huerta v Three Star Constr. Co., Inc. |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 09033 [56 AD3d 613] |
| November 18, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Luis Huerta, Appellant, v Three Star Construction Co.,Inc., Respondent. |
—[*1] Bivona & Cohen, P.C., New York, N.Y. (Anthony J. McNulty of counsel), forrespondent.
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, Kings County (Dabiri, J.), datedDecember 27, 2007, as denied his motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability on hisLabor Law § 240 (1) cause of action, and granted the defendant's cross motion forsummary judgment dismissing his Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1) and § 241 (6),and common-law negligence causes of action.
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The defendant established, prima facie, its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on theplaintiff's Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1) and § 241 (6), and common-lawnegligence causes of action with evidence that another entity, the plaintiff's employer, was hiredas the contractor at the subject construction site and that the defendant had no authority toenforce safety standards, did not hire any subcontractors, did not supervise or control the work,and provided no equipment (see Aversano v JWH Contr., LLC, 37 AD3d 745, 746[2007]; Haider v Davis, 35 AD3d 363 [2006]; Feltt v Owens, 247 AD2d 689,690-691 [1998]; cf. Markey v C.F.M.M. Owners Corp., 51 AD3d 734 [2008];Williams v Dover Home Improvement, 276 AD2d 626 [2000]). In opposition, theplaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. The fact that the defendant was listed as thecontractor on the work permits, and the plaintiff's allegation that after his accident, the defendanthired a plumber to sign off on plumbing work at the subject work site, without more, wasinsufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether, for purposes of the Labor Law, thedefendant was the contractor at the subject work site (see Aversano v JWH Contr., LLC,37 AD3d at 746; Feltt v Owens, 247 AD2d 689, 690-691 [1998]).
The plaintiff's remaining contentions are without merit. Spolzino, J.P., Florio, McCarthy andDickerson, JJ., concur.