LONG v. Visone Construction Co., Inc., Appellant, et al., Defendants. (1997)

 Supreme Court erred in denying the cross motion of defendant Visone Construction Co., Inc. (Visone), for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.   Visone, a subcontractor with no authority to supervise or control the work, is not liable pursuant to Labor Law § 240(1) or § 241(6) (see, Russin v. Louis N. Picciano & Son, 54 N.Y.2d 311, 318, 445 N.Y.S.2d 127, 429 N.E.2d 805;  Wright v. Nichter Constr. Co., 213 A.D.2d 995, 995-996, 624 N.Y.S.2d 487).   Because Visone did not exercise control over the manner and method of plaintiff James E. Long's work, there is no basis for the imposition of liability pursuant to Labor Law § 200 (see, Adamczyk v. Hillview Estates Dev. Corp., 226 A.D.2d 1049, 641 N.Y.S.2d 925);  Foster v. David J. Joseph Co., 216 A.D.2d 944, 945, 629 N.Y.S.2d 149).   Because Visone did not assume, either by contract or otherwise, a continuing duty to inspect the work site, it cannot be held liable under a common-law negligence theory for injuries sustained by an employee of the owner four months after Visone had completed its work and left the work site.

Appeal from order insofar as it denied reargument dismissed (see, Empire Ins. Co. v. Food City, 167 A.D.2d 983, 984, 562 N.Y.S.2d 5) and order reversed on the law without costs, cross motion granted and complaint against defendant Visone Construction Co., Inc., dismissed.

MEMORANDUM:

All concur. WESLEY, J., not participating.