Malloy v. Hanache

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Malloy v. Hanache

231 A.D.2d 693, 647 N.Y.S.2d 841, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9698

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

DecidedSeptember 30, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 231 A.D.2d 693 (Malloy v. Hanache) 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

Malloy v. Hanache, 231 A.D.2d 693, 647 N.Y.S.2d 841, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9698 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Underwood, J.), entered August 22, 1995, which, inter alia, granted the defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendant, the Director of the Campus Health Center at Hofstra University, contracted for the construction of an addition to her home. The plaintiff, a carpenter on the job, fell [694]*694from the roof and sustained injuries. The plaintiff asserts that questions of fact exist as to whether the defendant is liable pursuant to Labor Law §§ 200, 240, and 241 (6).

Before the owner of a one-family dwelling may be subject to liability under Labor Law §§ 240 or 241, the evidence must demonstrate that he or she directed or controlled the work being performed (see, Kelly v Bruno & Son, 190 AD2d 777). "The phrase 'direct or control’ is construed strictly and refers to the situation where 'the owner supervises the method and manner of the work’ ” (Spinillo v Strober Long Is. Bldg. Material Ctrs., 192 AD2d 515, 516). Contrary to the plaintiff’s contentions, there is no evidence to support the assertions that the defendant’s home was used as a medical office, or that the defendant directed or controlled the construction. Likewise, there is no evidence to support the contention that the defendant is liable pursuant to Labor Law § 200. There is no evidence that she exercised supervision and control over the work performed at her home, or had actual or constructive notice of the unsafe condition causing the accident (see, Seaman v A.B. Chance Co., 197 AD2d 612, 613).

We have examined the plaintiff’s remaining contentions and find they are without merit. Copertino, J. P., Goldstein, Mc-Ginity and Luciano, 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, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Underwood, J.), entered August 22, 1995, which, inter alia, granted the defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendant, the Director of the Campus Health Center at Hofstra University, contracted for the construction of an addition to her home. The plaintiff, a carpenter on the job, fell [694]*694from the roof and sustained injuries. The plaintiff asserts that questions of fact exist as to whether the defendant is liable pursuant to Labor Law §§ 200, 240, and 241 (6).

Before the owner of a one-family dwelling may be subject to liability under Labor Law §§ 240 or 241, the evidence must demonstrate that he or she directed or controlled the work being performed (see, Kelly v Bruno & Son, 190 AD2d 777). "The phrase 'direct or control’ is construed strictly and refers to the situation where 'the owner supervises the method and manner of the work’ ” (Spinillo v Strober Long Is. Bldg. Material Ctrs., 192 AD2d 515, 516). Contrary to the plaintiff’s contentions, there is no evidence to support the assertions that the defendant’s home was used as a medical office, or that the defendant directed or controlled the construction. Likewise, there is no evidence to support the contention that the defendant is liable pursuant to Labor Law § 200. There is no evidence that she exercised supervision and control over the work performed at her home, or had actual or constructive notice of the unsafe condition causing the accident (see, Seaman v A.B. Chance Co., 197 AD2d 612, 613).

We have examined the plaintiff’s remaining contentions and find they are without merit. Copertino, J. P., Goldstein, Mc-Ginity and Luciano, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

231 A.D.2d 693, 647 N.Y.S.2d 841, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9698, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/malloy-v-hanache-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack