Alfonseca v Van-Tag Constr. Corp.

Alfonseca v Van-Tag Constr. Corp. 2007 NY Slip Op 02990 [39 AD3d 266] April 5, 2007 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. As corrected through Wednesday, June 6, 2007

Efrain Alfonseca, Appellant,
v
Van-Tag Construction Corporation et al., Respondents, et al., Defendants. (And Other Actions.)

—[*1] Raymond B. Schwartzberg, PLLC & Associates, New York (Raymond B. Schwartzberg of counsel), for appellant.

Cartafalsa, Slattery, Turpin & Lenoff, New York (Andre A. Brochetelli of counsel), for Van-Tag Construction Corporation, respondent.

Querrey & Harrow, Ltd., New York (Thomas J. Bracken of counsel), for Piermont Ironworks Incorporated, respondent.

Fishman & Callahan, P.C., Suffern (Jayne F. Monahan of counsel), for Brittashan Electric Company, respondent.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Alice Schlesinger, J.), entered July 14, 2005, which, to the extent appealed from, granted the motion and cross motion by defendants Van-Tag Construction and Piermont Ironworks for summary judgment dismissing the complaint against them, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Owners, contractors and their agents can be liable under Labor Law § 200 (1) only if they had the authority to control the activity bringing about the injury, so as to be able to avoid or correct the unsafe condition (see e.g. Lombardi v Stout, 80 NY2d 290 [1992]). The language of the respective construction contracts does not subject these defendants to liability here (see [*2]Espinal v Melville Snow Contrs., 98 NY2d 136 [2002]), and plaintiff failed to show other means by which Van-Tag or Piermont had the requisite control to establish liability. Concur—Andrias, J.P., Marlow, Sullivan, Gonzalez and Kavanagh, JJ.