Karen A. Schroeder v Kalenak Painting & Paperhanging, Inc.

Schroeder v Kalenak Painting & Paperhanging, Inc. 2006 NY Slip Op 06317 [7 NY3d 797] August 29, 2006 Court of Appeals Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. As corrected through Wednesday, October 18, 2006

[*1] Karen A. Schroeder, Appellant,
v
Kalenak Painting & Paperhanging, Inc., et al., Respondents.

Decided August 29, 2006

Schroeder v Kalenak Painting & Paperhanging, Inc., 27 AD3d 1097, affirmed.

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

The Barnes Firm, P.C., Rochester (Sareer A. Fazili of counsel), for appellant.

Burke, Albright, Harter & Reddy, LLP, Rochester (Robert J. Burke of counsel), for Kalenak Painting & Paperhanging, Inc., respondent.

Sugarman Law Firm, LLP, Syracuse (Sandra L. Holihan of counsel), for Morris Massry, respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

Plaintiff concedes that wallpapering is not an enumerated activity under the Labor [*2]Law (see Labor Law § 240 [1]). Moreover, plaintiff fails to allege sufficient facts to establish that her work was part of a larger renovation project subject to coverage under the statute (see Martinez v City of New York, 93 NY2d 322, 326 [1999]; cf. Prats v Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., 100 NY2d 878 [2003]). Plaintiff's section 241 (6) argument is similarly without merit.

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

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.