Chunqi Liu v. Wong

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Chunqi Liu v. Wong

29 A.D.3d 850, 814 N.Y.S.2d 526

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMay 23, 2006

StatusPublished

This text of 29 A.D.3d 850 (Chunqi Liu v. Wong) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Chunqi Liu v. Wong, 29 A.D.3d 850, 814 N.Y.S.2d 526 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Dorsa, J.), dated June 2, 2005, as granted that branch of the motion of the defendants Howard Wong and Mei Wong which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

In response to the prima facie showing by the defendants Howard Wong and Mei Wong that they were entitled to the benefit of the exemption provided by Labor Law §§ 240 and 241 from absolute liability for the owners of one- or two-family dwellings who contract for but do not direct or control the work, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the dwelling qualified as a one- or two-family dwelling, or whether the defendant Howard Wong directed or controlled the work (see Bartoo v Buell, 87 NY2d 362 [1996]; Angelucci v Sands, 297 AD2d 764 [2002]; Yerdon v Lyon, 259 AD2d 864 [1999]).

In addition, since the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the defendants Howard Wong and Mei Wong directed or controlled the work, and they did not suggest that the Wongs had notice of an unsafe condition which caused [851]*851the accident, the cause of action pursuant to Labor Law § 200 was also properly dismissed (see Decavallas v Pappantoniou, 300 AD2d 617, 618-619 [2002]). Miller, J.P., Luciano, Lifson and Covello, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Dorsa, J.), dated June 2, 2005, as granted that branch of the motion of the defendants Howard Wong and Mei Wong which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

In response to the prima facie showing by the defendants Howard Wong and Mei Wong that they were entitled to the benefit of the exemption provided by Labor Law §§ 240 and 241 from absolute liability for the owners of one- or two-family dwellings who contract for but do not direct or control the work, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the dwelling qualified as a one- or two-family dwelling, or whether the defendant Howard Wong directed or controlled the work (see Bartoo v Buell, 87 NY2d 362 [1996]; Angelucci v Sands, 297 AD2d 764 [2002]; Yerdon v Lyon, 259 AD2d 864 [1999]).

In addition, since the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the defendants Howard Wong and Mei Wong directed or controlled the work, and they did not suggest that the Wongs had notice of an unsafe condition which caused [851]*851the accident, the cause of action pursuant to Labor Law § 200 was also properly dismissed (see Decavallas v Pappantoniou, 300 AD2d 617, 618-619 [2002]). Miller, J.P., Luciano, Lifson and Covello, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

29 A.D.3d 850, 814 N.Y.S.2d 526, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chunqi-liu-v-wong-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack