Oser v Truck King Intl.
2009 NY Slip Op 01965 [60 AD3d 832]
March 17, 2009
Appellate Division, Second Department
As corrected through Wednesday, May 6, 2009


Donald Oser et al., Appellants,
v
Truck King Internationalet al., Respondents.

[*1]Seidner, Rosenfeld & Guttentag, LLP, Babylon, N.Y. (Larry Rosenfeld of counsel), forappellants.

Savona, D'Erasmo & Hyer, LLC, New York, N.Y. (Raymond M. D'Erasmo of counsel), forrespondents.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from (1) anorder of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Weber, J.), dated December 3, 2007, which deniedtheir motion for summary judgment on the issue of the liability of the defendant Kousins KlubRealty, LLC, under Labor Law § 240 (1), and granted the defendants' cross motion forsummary judgment dismissing the complaint, and (2) an order of the same court dated March 14,2008, which denied their motion for leave to reargue.

Ordered that the appeal from the order dated March 14, 2008 is dismissed, as no appeal liesfrom an order denying reargument; and it is further,

Ordered that the order dated December 3, 2007 is affirmed; and it is further,

Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to the defendants.

On their cross motion for summary judgment, the defendants demonstrated their entitlementto judgment as a matter of law on the causes of action predicated upon violations of Labor Law§ 240 (1) and § 241 (6) by establishing, prima facie, that the activity the injuredplaintiff was performing at the time of his accident constituted routine maintenance in anonconstruction, nonexcavation, [*2]nondemolition context (see Azad v 270 5th Realty Corp., 46AD3d 728, 729-730 [2007]; Weinv Amato Props., LLC, 30 AD3d 506, 507 [2006]; Burr v Short, 285 AD2d 576,576-577 [2001]; Phillips v City of New York, 228 AD2d 570, 571 [1996]). Inopposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Thus, the Supreme Court properlygranted the defendants' cross motion for summary judgment (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp.,68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]).

The plaintiffs' remaining contentions are without merit. Mastro, J.P., Covello, Dickerson andLeventhal, JJ., concur.


NYPTI Decisions © 2026 is a project of New York Prosecutors Training Institute (NYPTI) made possible by leveraging the work we've done providing online research and tools to prosecutors.

NYPTI would like to thank New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services, New York State Senate's Open Legislation Project, New York State Unified Court System, New York State Law Reporting Bureau and Free Law Project for their invaluable assistance making this project possible.

Install the free RECAP extensions to help contribute to this archive. See https://free.law/recap/ for more information.