Schroeder v. Kalenak Painting & Paperhanging, Inc.

Majority

p. 797

[854 NE2d 1268, 821 NYS2d 804]

Karen A. Schroeder, Appellant, v Kalenak Painting & Paperhanging, Inc., et al., Respondents.

Decided August 29, 2006

p. 798

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

The Barnes Firm, P.C., Rochester (Sareer A. Fazili of counsel), for appellant.

Burke, Albright, Harter & Reddy, LLP, Rochester (Robert J. Burke of counsel), for Kalenak Painting & Paperhanging, Inc., respondent.

Sugarman Law Firm, LLP, Syracuse (Sandra L. Holihan of counsel), for Morris Massry, respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

Plaintiff concedes that wallpapering is not an enumerated activity under the Labor Law (see Labor Law § 240 [1]). Moreover, plaintiff fails to allege sufficient facts to estáblish that her work was part of a larger renovation project subject to coverage under the statute (see Martinez v City of New York, 93 NY2d 322 , 326 [1999]; cf. Prats v Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., 100 NY2d 878 [2003]). Plaintiff’s section 241 (6) argument is similarly without merit.

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

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.

Cases cited

Martinez v. City of New York 93 NY2d 322 N.Y. 1999-05-13 at 326 p. 798
Prats v. Port Authority of New York & New Jersey 100 NY2d 878 N.Y. 2003-10-21 p. 798

Statutes and regulations cited

Labor Law p. 798