Source: http://ny.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20120522_0002573.NY.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2017-03-30 09:06:49
Document Index: 646491293

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 240', '§ 240', '§ 241', '§ 240', '§ 241', '§ 241', '§ 200']

| Rayfus Butler v. Quest Property Management . Corp
Rayfus Butler v. Quest Property Management . Corp
RAYFUS BUTLER,PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT-RESPONDENT,v.QUEST PROPERTY MANAGEMENT . CORP.,DEFENDANT,CABLEVISION SYSTEMS CORP.,DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.
Butler v Quest Prop. Mgt. V. Corp.
Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Mary Ann Brigantti-Hughes, J.), entered August 5, 2011, which, inter alia, denied plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of defendant Cablevision Systems Corp.'s Labor Law § 240(1) liability, denied Cablevision's cross motion for dismissal of plaintiff's § 240(1) claim, and granted Cablevision's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff's Labor Law §§ 241(6) and 200 claims and common-law negligence claims, unanimously modified, on the law, to grant Cablevision's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff's § 240(1) claim, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.
Labor Law 240(1) does not apply here as plaintiff was not engaged in any alteration of the building at the time of the occurrence. The argument that his inspection might have led to additional work is mere speculation.
The motion court properly dismissed the Labor Law §§ 241(6) and 200 and common-law negligence claims. There is no evidence that plaintiff was engaged in construction, excavation or demolition work that would bring his work within the ambit of § 241(6). With regard to the § 200 and common-law negligence claims, there is also no evidence that Cablevision exercised supervision or control over the work performed at the premises (Campuzano v Board of Educ. of City of N.Y., 54 AD3d 268 [2008]).