| Santiago v Rusciano & Son, Inc. |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 01360 [92 AD3d 585] |
| February 23, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| Angel L. Santiago, Appellant, v Rusciano & Son, Inc., etal., Respondents. |
—[*1] The Law Offices of Edward M. Eustace, White Plains (Heath A. Bender of counsel), forrespondents.
Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Norma Ruiz, J.), entered on or about January 21,2011, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied plaintiff's motion forpartial summary judgment on the issue of liability on his Labor Law § 240 (1) cause ofaction, and granted defendants' cross motion (collectively, Owners) for summary judgmentdismissing the complaint as against them, unanimously modified, on the law, to deny the crossmotion as to the section 240 (1) and section 241 (6) causes of action, and to grant plaintiff'smotion, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.
Plaintiff was injured when, while boarding up windows to make the subject premisesuninhabitable and to protect it from vandalism in anticipation of demolition, he fell several feetfrom a ladder. Plaintiff's accident fell within the purview of section 240 (1), since the laddersupplied to plaintiff slipped out from underneath him and did not offer proper protection (seeKijak v 330 Madison Ave. Corp., 251 AD2d 152, 153 [1998]; see also Velasco v Green-WoodCemetery, 8 AD3d 88, 89 [2004]). Moreover, plaintiff was "altering" the premiseswithin the meaning of Labor Law § 240 (1). He was engaged in activities designed toprepare and secure the premises' windows for demolition, thereby "making a significantphysical change to the configuration or composition of the building" (Joblon vSolow, 91 NY2d 457, 465 [1998]; see Belding v Verizon N.Y., Inc., 14 NY3d 751, 752 [2010]).
The Labor Law § 241 (6) cause of action was improperly dismissed. Plaintiff wasperforming work on the premises as it was being prepared for demolition.
Plaintiff's Labor Law § 200 claim was properly dismissed. The accident did not arisefrom a dangerous condition of the premises and the Owners did not direct or control plaintiff'swork (see Campuzano v Board of Educ.of City of N.Y., 54 AD3d 268, 269 [2008]). Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Catterson,Renwick, Abdus-Salaam and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.