| Parise v Green Chimneys Children's Servs., Inc. |
| 2013 NY Slip Op 03649 [106 AD3d 970] |
| May 22, 2013 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Anthony Parise, Respondent, v Green ChimneysChildren's Services, Inc., Appellant. |
—[*1] Christopher X. Maher, Esq., LLC, Carmel, N.Y., for respondent.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from somuch of an order of the Supreme Court, Putnam County (Nicolai, J.), dated March 14,2012, as denied those branches of its motion which were for summary judgmentdismissing the causes of action alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 240 (1)and 241 (6).
Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs,and those branches of the defendant's motion which were for summary judgmentdismissing the causes of action alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 240 (1)and 241 (6) are granted.
The plaintiff allegedly sustained personal injuries when he fell from a ladder whileworking at property owned by the defendant, Green Chimneys Children's Services, Inc.(hereinafter Green Chimneys), a self-described "integrated campus for emotionallydisturbed youths." At the time of his accident, the plaintiff was performing preparatorywork for the painting of the "Founder's House," a single-family house which was usedexclusively as the residence of Green Chimneys' founder and his wife. The plaintiffcommenced this action, alleging common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law§§ 200, 240 (1) and 241 (6). Green Chimneys moved for summary judgmentdismissing the complaint, arguing, among other things, that it did not supervise theplaintiff's work, and that it was exempt from the provisions of Labor Law §§240 (1) and 241 (6) as the owner of a one-family dwelling. The Supreme Court grantedthose branches of Green Chimneys' motion which were for summary judgmentdismissing the causes of action alleging common-law negligence and violations of LaborLaw § 200. The court concluded, among other things, that Green Chimneys didnot supervise the plaintiff's work. However, the court denied the remaining branches ofthe motion on the ground that Green Chimneys was not entitled to the homeowner'sexemption of Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6).
Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241, which impose certain nondelegablesafety duties upon "contractors[,] owners and their agents," specifically exempt "ownersof one and two-family dwellings who contract for but do not direct or control the work."Here, Green Chimneys demonstrated its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matterof law with respect to, inter alia, [*2]its claim that it wasentitled to the homeowner's exemption of Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 byestablishing that the Founder's House was a single-family dwelling used solely as aresidence for Green Chimneys' founder and his wife, the house served no commercial orbusiness use for Green Chimneys, which received no income from the house, and GreenChimneys did not direct or control the work being performed (see Cannon vPutnam, 76 NY2d 644, 650 [1990]; Castellanos v United Cerebral Palsy Assn. of Greater Suffolk,Inc., 77 AD3d 879 [2010]; Uddin v Three Bros. Constr. Corp., 33 AD3d 691 [2006];Baez v Cow Bay Constr., 303 AD2d 528 [2003]; Telfer v GunnisonLakeshore Orchards, 245 AD2d 620 [1997]; Muniz v Church of Our Lady of Mt.Carmel, 238 AD2d 101 [1997]; Conforti v Babad, 182 AD2d 1010 [1992];Pigott v Church of Holy Infancy, 179 AD2d 161 [1992]).
In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Bartoo vBuell, 87 NY2d 362 [1996]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have grantedthose branches of Green Chimneys' motion which were for summary judgmentdismissing the causes of action alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 240 (1)and 241 (6). Skelos, J.P., Hall, Lott and Hinds-Radix, JJ., concur.