Umanzor v Charles Hofer Painting & Wallpapering, Inc.

Annotate this Case
Umanzor v Charles Hofer Painting & Wallpapering, Inc. 2008 NY Slip Op 01334 [48 AD3d 553] February 13, 2008 Appellate Division, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. As corrected through Wednesday, April 16, 2008

Erick R. Umanzor, Appellant,
v
Charles Hofer Painting & Wallpapering, Inc., Respondent, et al., Defendants. (And Third-Party Actions.)

—[*1] Lawrence A. Wilson, New York, N.Y. (Alexander J. Wulwick of counsel), for appellant.

Shayne, Dachs, Corker, Sauer & Dachs, LLP, Mineola, N.Y. (Jonathan A. Dachs of counsel), for respondent.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an amended interlocutory judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Weber, J.), entered April 26, 2007, which, upon an order of the same court dated June 16, 2006, granting the motion of the defendant Charles Hofer Painting & Wallpapering, Inc., for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it and denying his cross motion for summary judgment against that defendant on the issue of liability under Labor Law § 240 (1), dismissed the complaint insofar as asserted against the defendant Charles Hofer Painting & Wallpapering, Inc.

Ordered that the amended interlocutory judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The defendant Charles Hofer Painting & Wallpapering, Inc., established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting evidence that it was not an owner, contractor, or agent for purposes of liability under Labor Law § 240 (1) (see Labor Law § 240 [1]; Blake v Neighborhood Hous. Servs. of N.Y. City, 1 NY3d 280 [2003]). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]). Rivera, J.P., Santucci, Covello and Balkin, JJ., concur.