Opinion
January 25, 1999.
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Meehan, J.).
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs payable to the respondent.
Contrary to the plaintiff's contention, there is ample evidence in the record to support the Supreme Court's conclusion that the actions of the defendant owner of the premises were merely those of an ordinary concerned homeowner and did not rise to the level of directing or controlling the manner or method of the plaintiff's performance of his work ( see, e.g., Kostyj v. Babiarz, 212 A.D.2d 1010; Lane v. Karian, 210 A.D.2d 549; Kolakowski v. Feeney, 204 A.D.2d 693; Spinillo v. Strober Long Is. Bldg. Material Ctrs., 192 A.D.2d 515). Indeed, both the plaintiff and his employer, the third-party defendant, admitted that the employer instructed the plaintiff regarding which work was to be done and the manner in which it was to be performed, and that the defendant never gave any such instruction and did not provide any tools or safety equipment to the workers. ( see, Valentin v. Thirty-Four Sq. Corp., 227 A.D.2d 467; Lieberth v. Walden, 223 A.D.2d 978). Accordingly, the defendant succeeded in demonstrating that he was entitled to the homeowner's exemption under Labor Law §§ 240 Lab. and 241 Lab., and the Supreme Court properly granted those branches of his motion which were for summary judgment dismissing the causes of action premised on alleged violations of Labor Law §§ 240 Lab. and 241 Lab..
Bracken, J.P., O'Brien, Sullivan and Goldstein, JJ., concur.