Majority
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants Michael O’Halloran and Judith McHale appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Lefkowitz, J.), dated June 3, 2015, as denied those branches of their motion which were for summary judgment dismissing the causes of action alleging common-law negligence and a violation of Labor Law § 200 insofar as asserted against them.
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from,
The plaintiff, an electrician, allegedly slipped on ice and fell on the driveway as he approached the front steps of a house owned by the defendants Michael O’Halloran and Judith Mc-Hale (hereinafter together the homeowners). At the time of the accident, the house was undergoing extensive renovations and the homeowners were living out of state. The defendant Seakco New York, LLC (hereinafter Seakco), was the general contractor on the renovation project. The plaintiff commenced this action alleging common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 (6) against, among others, the homeowners and Seakco. The homeowners moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them, arguing that they did not exercise any supervision or control over the plaintiff’s work and that they lacked notice of the allegedly icy condition that caused the accident. The Supreme Court granted that branch of the motion which was to dismiss the cause of action alleging a violation of Labor Law § 241 (6), but denied those branches of the motion which were for summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence causes of action. The homeowners appeal.
Labor Law § 200 is a codification of the common-law duty to provide workers with a reasonably safe place to work (see Comes v New York State Elec. & Gas Corp., 82 NY2d 876 , 877 [1993]; Lombardi v Stout, 80 NY2d 290 , 294 [1992]). “Cases involving Labor Law § 200 fall into two broad categories: namely, those where workers are injured as a result of dangerous or defective premises conditions at a work site, and those involving the manner in which the work is performed” (Ortega v Puccia, 57 AD3d 54 , 61 [2008]; see Chowdhury v Rodriguez, 57 AD3d 121 , 128 [2008]). Where a worker’s injury arises out of the condition of the premises, liability may not be imposed unless the owner “either created the dangerous condition that caused the accident or had actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition that caused the accident” (Ortega v Puccia, 57 AD3d at 61 ; see Baumann v Town of Islip, 120 AD3d 603 , 605 [2014]).
The Supreme Court properly determined that the homeowners had a duty to keep their property in a reasonably safe condition and provide workers with a safe place to work, even though they were residing out of state at the time of the accident (see Carlson v Lyon, 289 AD2d 835 , 836 [2001]; Fehrenbacher v Berl, 240 AD2d 466 , 467 [1997]). In addition, contrary to the
Rivera, J.R, Balkin, Barros and Brathwaite Nelson, JJ., concur.
Cases cited
- Comes v. New York State Electric & Gas Corp. 82 NY2d 876 at 877 p. 678
- Lombardi v. Stout 80 NY2d 290 at 294 p. 678
- Ortega v. Puccia 57 AD3d 54 at 61 p. 678
- Chowdhury v. Rodriguez 57 AD3d 121 at 128 p. 678
- Baumann v. Town of Islip 120 AD3d 603 at 605 p. 678
- Mikelatos v. Theofilaktidis 105 AD3d 822 at 823 p. 679
- Edick v. General Electric Co. 98 AD3d 1217 at 1219 p. 679
- Sullivan v. RGS Energy Group, Inc. 78 AD3d 1503 p. 679
- Slikas v. Cyclone Realty, LLC 78 AD3d 144 at 148 p. 679
- Denardo v. Ziatyk 95 AD3d 929 at 930 p. 679
- Medina v. La Fiura Development Corp. 69 AD3d 686 p. 679
- Giantomaso v. T. Weiss Realty Corp. 142 AD3d 950 at 951 p. 679
- Baines v. G&D Ventures, Inc. 64 AD3d 528 at 529 p. 679
- Alvarez v. Prospect Hospital 68 NY2d 320 at 324 p. 679