LLC, New York, NY (Matthew A. Cuomo of counsel), for
Henderson & Brennan, White Plains, NY (Lauren J. Demase
and Brian Henderson of counsel), for plaintiff-respondent.
P. Curcio, Middletown, NY (Tony Semidey of counsel), for
REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P. RUTH C. BALKIN BETSY BARROS VALERIE
BRATHWAITE NELSON, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
action to recover damages for personal injuries, the
defendants Michael O'Halloran and Judith McHale appeal
from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester
County (Lefkowitz, J.), dated June 3, 2015, as denied those
branches of their motion which were for summary judgment
dismissing the causes of action alleging common-law
negligence and a violation of Labor Law § 200 insofar as
asserted against them.
that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one
bill of costs payable to the respondents appearing separately
and filing separate briefs.
plaintiff, an electrician, allegedly slipped on ice and fell
on the driveway as he approached the front steps of a house
owned by the defendants Michael O'Halloran and Judith
McHale (hereinafter together the homeowners). At the time of
the accident, the house was undergoing extensive renovations
and the homeowners were living out of state. The defendant
Seakco New York, LLC (hereinafter Seakco), was the general
contractor on the renovation project. The plaintiff commenced
this action alleging common-law negligence and violations of
Labor Law §§ 200 and 241(6) against, among others,
the homeowners and Seakco. The homeowners moved for summary
judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against
them, arguing that they did not exercise any supervision or
control over the plaintiff's work and that they lacked
notice of the allegedly icy condition that caused the
accident. The Supreme Court granted that branch of the motion
which was to dismiss the cause of action alleging a violation
of Labor Law § 241(6), but denied those branches of the
motion which were for summary judgment dismissing the Labor
Law § 200 and common-law negligence causes of action.
The homeowners appeal.
Law § 200 is a codification of the common-law duty to
provide workers with a reasonably safe place to work (see
Comes v New York State Elec. & Gas Corp., 82 N.Y.2d
876, 877; Lombardi v Stout, 80 N.Y.2d 290, 294).
"Cases involving Labor Law § 200 fall into two
broad categories: namely, those where workers are injured as
a result of dangerous or defective premises conditions at a
work site, and those involving the manner in which the work
is performed" (Ortega v Puccia, 57 A.D.3d 54,
61; see Chowdhury v Rodriguez, 57 A.D.3d 121, 128).
Where a worker's injury arises out of the condition of
the premises, liability may not be imposed unless the owner
"either created the dangerous condition that caused the
accident or had actual or constructive notice of the
dangerous condition that caused the accident"
(Ortega v Puccia, 57 A.D.3d at 61; see Baumann v
Town of Islip, 120 A.D.3d 603, 605).
Supreme Court properly determined that the homeowners had a
duty to keep their property in a reasonably safe condition
and provide workers with a safe place to work, even though
they were residing out of state at the time of the accident
(see Carlson v Lyon, 289 A.D.2d 835, 836;
Fehrenbacher v Berl, 240 A.D.2d 466, 467). In
addition, contrary to the homeowners' contention, the
plaintiff's alleged injuries stem from a dangerous
condition on the premises (see Baumann v Town of
Islip, 120 A.D.3d at 604-605; Mikelatos v
Theofilaktidis, 105 A.D.3d 822, 823; Edick v General
Elec. Co., 98 A.D.3d 1217, 1219; Sullivan v RGS
Energy Group, Inc., 78 A.D.3d 1503; see also Slikas
v Cyclone Realty, LLC, 78 A.D.3d 144, 148), and not from
the manner in which work was performed (cf. Cody v State
of New York, 82 A.D.3d 925, 928). Further, the court
properly concluded that the homeowners failed to establish,
prima facie, that they lacked constructive notice of the
alleged icy condition in the driveway (see Denardo v
Ziatyk, 95 A.D.3d 929, 930; Medina v La Fiura Dev.
Corp., 69 A.D.3d 686). The evidence submitted in support
of the homeowners' motion, which included transcripts of
the plaintiff's and their own deposition testimony,
failed to establish when they or the company they contracted
with to provide snow removal on the driveway last inspected
the driveway, or what the driveway looked like on the day of
the accident (see Giantomaso v T. Weiss Realty
Corp., 142 A.D.3d 950, 951; Denardo v Ziatyk,
95 A.D.3d at 930; Baines v G & D ...