Stejskal v. Simons
| Citation | 816 N.E.2d 186,782 N.Y.S.2d 397,3 N.Y.3d 628 |
| Parties | IVO STEJSKAL et al., Appellants, v. ALBERT SIMONS III et al., Respondents. (And a Third-Party Action.) |
| Decision Date | 24 June 2004 |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals |
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.
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 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]).
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.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lopez v. Dagan
...the construction work was to convert a multiple dwelling into a one-family dwelling for the owners' use ( Stejskal v. Simons, 3 N.Y.3d 628, 629, 782 N.Y.S.2d 397, 816 N.E.2d 186 [2004] ). The owners also submitted evidence, including their contract with the general contractor and deposition......
-
Caiazzo v. Mark Joseph Contracting, Inc.
...Inc., 97 A.D.3d 737, 948 N.Y.S.2d 671;Nai Ren Jiang v. Shane Yeh, 95 A.D.3d 970, 944 N.Y.S.2d 200;see also Stejskal v. Simons, 3 N.Y.3d 628, 782 N.Y.S.2d 397, 816 N.E.2d 186). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact ( see Alvarez v. Prospect Hosp., 68 N.Y.2d at ......
-
Wood v. Artifact Props., LLC
...its entitlement to the one- or two-family home exemption from liability under Labor Law § 240(1) (see Stejskal v. Simons , 3 N.Y.3d 628, 629, 782 N.Y.S.2d 397, 816 N.E.2d 186 [2004] ; Khela v. Neiger , 85 N.Y.2d 333, 338, 624 N.Y.S.2d 566, 648 N.E.2d 1329 [1995] ; Fawcett v. Stearns , 142 A......
-
Sanchez v. Palmiero
...v. Putnam, 76 N.Y.2d 644, 563 N.Y.S.2d 16, 564 N.E.2d 626;Stejskal v. Simons, 309 A.D.2d 853, 855, 765 N.Y.S.2d 886,affd.3 N.Y.3d 628, 782 N.Y.S.2d 397, 816 N.E.2d 186). Here, Palmiero established his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the causes of action all......