| Pirog v 5433 Preston Ct., LLC |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 07912 [78 AD3d 676] |
| November 3, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Jerzy Pirog, Respondent, v 5433 Preston Court, LLC,Appellant. |
—[*1] Kahn Gordon Timko & Rodriques, P.C., New York, N.Y. (Nicholas I. Timko of counsel), forrespondent.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals, as limited by its brief,from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (F. Rivera, J.), dated October 30,2009, as denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, and thedefendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted.
The defendant owns property in Brooklyn used by the plaintiff's employer to storeconstruction-related materials for use on various construction projects in New York City. The plaintiffallegedly injured his hand while he and his coworkers were placing pipes onto a stack of pipes locatedon the defendant's property. The plaintiff subsequently commenced this action against the defendantasserting causes of action sounding in common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law§§ 200, 240 (1) and § 241 (6).
The defendant established, prima facie, that at the time of the accident, the plaintiff was notengaged in construction work within the meaning of Labor Law § 240 (1) and was not workingin a construction area within the meaning of Labor Law § 241 (6) (see Hurtado v Interstate Materials Corp., 56AD3d 722 [2008]; Furino v P & OPorts, 24 AD3d 502, 503 [2005]; Peterkin v City of New York, 5 AD3d 652 [2004]). With respect toLabor Law § 200 and common-law negligence, the accident arose from alleged dangersconcerning the methods of the plaintiff's work, and the defendant made a prima facie showing that it didnot have the authority to supervise or control the performance of the plaintiff's work (see Ortega v Puccia, 57 AD3d 54,61-63 [2008]). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Alvarez vProspect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]). Therefore, the Supreme Court should have grantedthe defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
In light of our determination, we need not address the defendant's remaining contentions. Fisher,J.P., Dillon, Florio and Lott, JJ., concur.