Chura v. Baruzzi

• Decision Date: 22 April 1993
• Citation: 596 N.Y.S.2d 592,192 A.D.2d 918
• Parties: Barry CHURA, Respondent, v. Peter BARUZZI, Appellant. (And A Third-Party Action.)
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 592

596 N.Y.S.2d 592

192 A.D.2d 918

Barry CHURA, Respondent, v. Peter BARUZZI, Appellant (And A Third-Party Action.)

Supreme Court, Appellate Division Third Department.

April 22, 1993.

Stephen R. Spring (Mark Donohue, of counsel), Albany, for appellant.

Edward Obertubbesing, Ballston Spa, for respondent.

Before WEISS, P.J., and YESAWICH, MERCURE, MAHONEY and CASEY, JJ.

MAHONEY, Justice.

Appeals from two orders of the Supreme Court (Plumadore, J.), entered April 3, 1992 and June 23, 1992 in Saratoga County, which, inter alia, denied defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

This action asserts claims based upon Labor Law § 240(1) and common-law negligence arising out of injuries sustained by plaintiff, an employee of third-party defendant R & J Robichaud Drywall Corporation (hereinafter R & J), when he fell from a ladder while taping drywall in a dwelling owned by defendant which was undergoing extensive renovation at the time. Following joinder of issue and the conducting of depositions, defendant moved for summary judgment on both claims asserting principally that he was immune from liability because he did not direct or control the work. Plaintiff cross-moved for the same relief. Supreme Court initially denied defendant's motion on the common-law negligence claim, but withheld decision on the Labor Law § 240 claim pending the submission of further evidence regarding defendant's direction and control. Following receipt of the additional evidence, the court concluded that defendant's activities raised factual questions regarding his direction and control over the work and denied defendant's summary judgment motion on the Labor Law § 240 claim as well. Defendant appeals from both orders.

We affirm. In analyzing whether a homeowner's actions with respect to a particular construction or renovation project amount to direction and control thereof within the meaning of Labor Law § 240(1), the relevant inquiry is the degree to which he or she supervised or directed the method and manner of the work (see, e.g., Valentia v. Giusto, 182 A.D.2d 987, 581 N.Y.S.2d 939; Reyes v. Silfies, 168 A.D.2d 979, 564 N.Y.S.2d 925; Ennis v. Hayes, 152 A.D.2d 914, 544 N.Y.S.2d 99). Here, there can be no argument but that defendant's actions went well beyond those of an interested homeowner who simply presented ideas and suggestions, made observations and inquiries, and inspected the work (see, Stephens v. Tucker, 184 A.D.2d 828, 584 N.Y.S.2d 667). Rather, the record reveals that defendant engineered the entire renovation project acting, in effect, as his own general contractor, receiving bids, negotiating contracts and hiring specialty subcontractors as needed for certain jobs. More significantly, however, during the renovation defendant was at the job site daily, not only doing work on his own but also overseeing the project in its entirety, organizing the subcontractors and telling them...