Opinion
2003-04057.
Decided March 22, 2004.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Dunn, J.), dated March 6, 2003, which granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the causes of action alleging violations of Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence.
Leo Leo, Coram, N.Y. (Donald W. Leo and John F. Clennan of counsel), for appellants.
Aaronson, Rappaport, Feinstein Deutsch, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Steven C. Mandell of counsel), for respondent.
Before: FRED T. SANTUCCI, J.P., GABRIEL M. KRAUSMAN, DANIEL F. LUCIANO, SANDRA L. TOWNES, JJ.
DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
Labor Law § 200 codified the common-law duty of an owner or employer to provide employees with a safe place to work ( see Jock v. Fien, 80 N.Y.2d 965, 967; Yong Ju Kim v. Herbert Constr. Co., 275 A.D.2d 709). The statute applies to owners and contractors who exercise control or supervision over the work being performed, or who have either created a dangerous condition or had actual or constructive notice of such condition ( see Lombardi v. Stout, 80 N.Y.2d 290, 294-295; Fenton v. Monotype Sys., 289 A.D.2d 194; Yong Ju Kim v. Herbert Constr. Co., supra). Here, the defendant general contractor made a prima facie showing of entitlement to summary judgment dismissing the causes of action alleging violations of Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence by demonstrating that it did not exercise supervisory control over the injured plaintiff's work, and that it neither created nor had actual or constructive knowledge of the allegedly dangerous condition ( see Fenton v. Monotype Sys., supra; Yong Ju Kim v. Herbert Constr. Co., supra). In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to come forward with evidence to support their claim, inter alia, that the allegedly dangerous condition was created by the defendant's employees. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the causes of action alleging violations of Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence.
The plaintiffs' remaining contentions are without merit.
SANTUCCI, J.P., KRAUSMAN, LUCIANO and TOWNES, JJ., concur.