| Dougherty v O'Connor |
| 2011 NY Slip Op 05652 [85 AD3d 1090] |
| June 28, 2011 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Ronald J. Dougherty, Appellant, v James P. O'Connor,Respondent, et al., Defendant. |
—[*1] Sobel & Schleier, LLC, Huntington, N.Y. (Curtis Sobel of counsel), for respondent.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by hisbrief, from so much of an amended order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Spinner, J.),dated April 19, 2010, as, upon granting leave to reargue, adhered to the original determination inan order dated September 16, 2009, granting the motion of the defendant James P. O'Connor forsummary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against that defendant.
Ordered that the amended order dated April 19, 2010, is affirmed insofar as appealed from,with costs.
The plaintiff allegedly was injured while removing gutters from a house owned by thedefendant James P. O'Connor (hereinafter the defendant). While standing on a ladder owned bythe defendant, the plaintiff allegedly was attacked by a swarm of bees, and fell from the ladderwhile attempting to swat the bees away. The plaintiff commenced this action alleging causes ofaction sounding in common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200,240 (1) and § 241 (6).
The defendant made a prima facie showing of his entitlement to judgment as a matter of lawdismissing the causes of action alleging violations of Labor Law § 240 (1) and § 241(6) insofar as asserted against him by demonstrating that the subject work was performed at aone-family dwelling, and that he did not direct or control the work (see Castellanos v United Cerebral PalsyAssn. of Greater Suffolk, Inc., 77 AD3d 879, 880 [2010]). In opposition, the plaintifffailed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324[1986]). Accordingly, upon reargument, the Supreme Court properly adhered to its priordetermination granting those branches of the defendant's motion which were for summaryjudgment dismissing the Labor Law § 240 (1) and § 241 (6) causes of action insofaras asserted against him.
Furthermore, the Supreme Court properly adhered to its prior determination granting thosebranches of the defendant's motion which were for summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law§ 200 and common-law negligence causes of action insofar as asserted against him. Thedefendant established, prima facie, that he did not create or have actual or constructive notice ofa dangerous or defective condition with respect to the ladder he provided to the plaintiff (see Chowdhury v Rodriguez, 57 AD3d121, 123 [2008]), or a dangerous condition with respect to the bees that were on the property(see Murray v South End Improvement Corp., 263 AD2d 577, 578 [1999]; Febesh v[*2]Elcejay Inn Corp., 157 AD2d 102, 105 [1990]). Inopposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Prudenti, P.J., Eng, Hall and Lott,JJ., concur.