Opinion
Argued March 24, 2000.
May 3, 2000.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Doyle, J.), entered April 30, 1999, which, inter alia, granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denied their cross motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability under Labor Law §§ 240 Lab.(1) and 241 Lab.
Spada Ardam, P.C., Smithtown, N.Y. (David M. Ardam of counsel), for appellants.
Michael F. X. Manning, Garden City, N.Y. (John P. Humphreys of counsel), for respondent.
WILLIAM C. THOMPSON, J.P., DANIEL F. LUCIANO, SANDRA J. FEUERSTEIN, ROBERT W. SCHMIDT, JJ.
DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The plaintiff Joseph R. Lang fell from a ladder and sustained injuries while he was performing his duties as a plumber at the defendant's single-family house. The plaintiffs contend that a question of fact exists as whether the defendant was directing or controlling the injured plaintiff's work which, if true, would make the defendant liable for his injuries under Labor Law §§ 240 Lab.(1) and 241 Lab.
Under Labor Law §§ 240 Lab.(1) and 241 Lab., a property owner is absolutely liable for an employee's injuries resulting from a fall from a ladder if the property owner did not properly protect the employee with respect to the construction, operation, or placement of the ladder (see, Labor Law §§ 240 Lab.[1], 241 Lab.[6]). However, an owner of a single-family house is exempt from these statutes unless the owner directed or controlled the plaintiff's work (see, Labor Law §§ 240 Lab.[1], 241 Lab.[6]; Rimoldi v. Schanzer, 147 A.D.2d 541).
The plaintiffs failed to raise an issue of fact as to whether the defendant directed or controlled the injured plaintiff `s work. Although the defendant was a carpenter/contractor by trade and performed a significant amount of work in constructing the house, he did not control, direct, or supervise the method or manner of the injured plaintiff's plumbing tasks (see, Jenkins v. Jones, 255 A.D.2d 805; Jacobsen v. Grossman, 206 A.D.2d 405; Kolakowski v. Feeney, 204 A.D.2d 693. "[T]he exemption is not vitiated by reason of a homeowner engaging in construction work on the premises unrelated to that undertaken by [the] plaintiff" (Kammerer v. Baskewicz, 257 A.D.2d 811, 812). Thus, the defendant is exempt from the mandates of Labor Law §§ 240 Lab.(1) and 241 Lab.
The plaintiffs' remaining contention is without merit.
THOMPSON, J.P., LUCIANO, FEUERSTEIN and SCHMIDT, JJ., concur.