Killian v. Vesuvio

Decision Date17 August 1998
Citation253 A.D.2d 480,676 N.Y.S.2d 676
Parties, 1998 N.Y. Slip Op. 7411 William KILLIAN, Appellant, v. John VESUVIO, et al., Respondents, et al., Defendants (and a third-party action).
CourtNew York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Easton & Clark, Levittown, N.Y. (David Grossman of counsel), for appellant.

ROSENBLATT, J.P., and O'BRIEN, KRAUSMAN and GOLDSTEIN, JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Coppola, J.), entered October 2, 1997, which granted the motion of the defendants John Vesuvio and Joanna Vesuvio for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Contrary to the plaintiff's contention, the Supreme Court properly awarded summary judgment to the defendant homeowners. An owner of a one- or two-family dwelling is subject to liability under Labor Law § 240 or § 241 only if the evidence demonstrates that he or she directed or controlled the work being performed (see, Barnes v. Lucas, 234 A.D.2d 405, 650 N.Y.S.2d 803; Malloy v. Hanache, 231 A.D.2d 693, 647 N.Y.S.2d 841). Direction and control will be found where the owner "supervises the method and manner of the work, can order changes in the specifications, reviews the progress and details of the job with the general contractor, provides the equipment necessary to perform the work" (Devodier v. Haas, 173 A.D.2d 437, 438, 570 N.Y.S.2d 63; Valentin v. Thirty-Four Sq Corp., 227 A.D.2d 467, 468, 643 N.Y.S.2d 157).

The record reveals that the defendant John Vesuvio visited the premises on a daily basis to observe the work being performed by the contractor hired to frame the one-family house, and that he reviewed the blueprints and discussed general matters with the contractor. The plaintiff alleges that Vesuvio also assisted in performing some of the construction work. However, Vesuvio has no background in the construction field, and there is no evidence that he ever gave any instructions or directions to the contractor's employees, or that he controlled the method and manner of their work. Indeed, the plaintiff testified at his deposition that he and Vesuvio spoke only to exchange greetings. Furthermore, it is undisputed that the contractor provided the tools used at the site, and constructed the wooden ramp the plaintiff was standing upon at the time of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • Yanez v. Chan, Index No.: 004748/10
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court
    • March 22, 2012
    ...and the grinder that were the cause of the accident, he provided "the equipment necessary to perform the work". See Killian v. Vesuvio, 253 A.D.2d 480 (2d Dept. 1998) The language of Labor Law § 240 (1) expressly exempts "owners of one and two-family dwellings who contract for but do not di......
  • Rodas v. Weissberg
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • May 10, 1999
    ...to liability under Labor Law §§ 240 or 241 only if he or she directed or controlled the work being performed (see, Killian v. Vesuvio, 253 A.D.2d 480, 676 N.Y.S.2d 676; Barnes v. Lucas, 234 A.D.2d 405, 650 N.Y.S.2d 803; Malloy v. Hanache, 231 A.D.2d 693, 647 N.Y.S.2d 841). The phrase "direc......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT