Opinion
2003-01518.
Decided March 29, 2004.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant Ace Scaffolding appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Schmidt, J.), dated November 6, 2002, as denied those branches of its motion which were for summary judgment dismissing the causes of action alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240(1), and 241(6) insofar as asserted against it.
Kral, Clerkin, Redmond, Ryan, Perry Girvan, LLP, Smithtown, N.Y. (James V. Derenze of counsel), for appellant.
Bader, Yakaitis Nonnenmacher, LLP, New York, N.Y. (John J. Nonnenmacher of counsel), for respondents.
Before: DAVID S. RITTER, J.P., HOWARD MILLER, STEPHEN G. CRANE, BARRY A. COZIER, JJ.
DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, those branches of the motion which were for summary judgment dismissing the causes of action alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240(1), and 241(6) insofar as asserted against the appellant are granted, and those causes of action are dismissed insofar as asserted against the appellant.
The injured plaintiff, Javier Morales (hereinafter the plaintiff), an employee of the defendant APA Restoration Corp. (hereinafter APA), was injured when a parapet wall of a sidewalk bridge collapsed, causing him fall to the ground below. The defendant Ace Scaffolding (hereinafter Ace) erected the sidewalk bridge.
Ace was not an owner, general contractor, or statutory agent of either because it had no authority to supervise and control the plaintiff's work. Therefore, it bears no liability under Labor Law §§ 240(1) or 241(6) ( see Russin v. Picciano Son, 54 N.Y.2d 311, 318; Morris v. Pepe, 283 A.D.2d 558, 559-560; cf. Kehoe v. Segal, 272 A.D.2d 583, 584).
Because Ace had no authority to supervise or control the work that caused the plaintiff's injuries, it cannot be found liable under Labor Law § 200 either ( see Allen v. Cloutier Constr. Corp., 44 N.Y.2d 290, 299; Sprague v. Peckham Materials Corp., 240 A.D.2d 392, 394; Noah v. 270 Lafayette Assocs, L.P., 233 A.D.2d 108, 109). Since Ace on its appeal does not address the plaintiffs' claim to recover damages for common-law negligence ( see Kanney v. Goodyear Tire Rubber Co., 245 A.D.2d 1034, 1036), we do not decide whether a factual issue exists as to whether the accident was caused by a defect in the scaffold or its erection or whether it was caused by its misuse by the plaintiff or APA.
RITTER, J.P., H. MILLER, CRANE and COZIER, JJ., concur.