Summary
affirming the entry of summary judgment dismissing Labor Law claims where "none of defendants hired, or even knew of the retention of, the . . . contractor in whose employment plaintiff was at the time of the accident giving rise to the within action"
Summary of this case from Kerrigan v. N.Y. State Elec.Opinion
April 7, 1998
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Edward Lehner, J.).
To recover from defendants in their capacity as owners pursuant to Labor Law §§ 240 or 241, it would, under the circumstances of this case, have been necessary for plaintiff to establish that he had been employed by defendants or their agent (see, Brown v. Christopher St. Owners Corp., 211 A.D.2d 441, 442, affd 87 N.Y.2d 938). It is clear, however, that none of defendants hired, or even knew of the retention of, the cable television contractor in whose employment plaintiff was at the time of the accident giving rise to the within action and, accordingly, summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law causes of action was properly granted (see, Brown v. Christopher St. Owners Corp., supra; Aviles v. Crystal Mgt., 233 A.D.2d 129; Marchese v. Grossarth, 232 A.D.2d 924, lv denied 89 N.Y.2d 809).
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Williams, Tom and Andrias, JJ.