Stejskal v. Simons — 3 N.Y.3d 628

Majority

p. 628

[816 NE2d 186, 782 NYS2d 397]

Ivo Stejskal et al., Appellants, v Albert Simons III et al., Respondents. (And a Third-Party Action.)

Decided June 24, 2004

p. 629

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

Profeta & Eisenstein, New York City (Fred R. Profeta, Jr., of counsel), for appellants.

DeCicco, Gibbons & McNamara, PC., New York City (Dennis A. Breen of counsel), for respondents.

OPINION OF THE COURT

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]).

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

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.4), order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.

Cases cited

Khela v. Neiger 85 NY2d 333 N.Y. 1995-03-30 at 338 p. 629
Cannon v. Putnam 76 NY2d 644 N.Y. 1990-10-23 at 650 p. 629

Statutes and regulations cited

Labor Law p. 629