Ivo Stejskal v Albert Simons

Stejskal v Simons 2004 NY Slip Op 05485 [3 NY3d 628] June 24, 2004 Court of Appeals Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. As corrected through Wednesday, October 13, 2004

[*1] Ivo Stejskal et al., Appellants,
v
Albert Simons III et al., Respondents. (And a Third-Party Action.)

Decided June 24, 2004

Stejskal v Simons, 309 AD2d 853, affirmed.

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

Profeta & Eisenstein, New York City (Fred R. Profeta, Jr., of counsel), for appellants.

DeCicco, Gibbons & McNamara, P.C., New York City (Dennis A. Breen of counsel), for respondents.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs. The evidence unequivocally demonstrated that the sole purpose of the construction work was to convert what was a multiple dwelling into a one-family dwelling for the owners' use. Thus, defendant owners [*2]were entitled to avail themselves of the one- or two-family homeowner's exemption provided in Labor Law § 240 (1) and § 241 (see Khela v Neiger, 85 NY2d 333, 338 [1995]; Cannon v Putnam, 76 NY2d 644, 650 [1990]).

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges G.B. Smith, Ciparick, Rosenblatt, Graffeo, Read and R.S. Smith concur.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.4), order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.