DUFFIELD v. Helen Groth, Defendant-Appellant. (2008)

Plaintiff commenced this Labor Law and common-law negligence action seeking damages for injuries he sustained when he fell from the roof of a building located on property owned by Helen Groth (defendant).   Plaintiff's employer had recently purchased the building from defendant, and the building was being removed from defendant's property at the time of plaintiff's fall.   Supreme Court properly denied those parts of the motion of defendant for summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 240(1) and § 241(6) claims against her.   Contrary to the contention of defendant, she is liable for violations of those sections of the Labor Law that occurred during the course of removing the building from her property based on her status as the fee owner of the property (see Sanatass v. Consolidated Inv. Co., Inc., 10 N.Y.3d 333, 340-342, 858 N.Y.S.2d 67, 887 N.E.2d 1125;  Gordon v. Eastern Ry. Supply, 82 N.Y.2d 555, 559-560, 606 N.Y.S.2d 127, 626 N.E.2d 912;  Phillips v. Eastman Kodak Co., 204 A.D.2d 979, 613 N.Y.S.2d 68), regardless of the fact that she did not own the building on which plaintiff was working when he fell (see Gordon, 82 N.Y.2d at 560, 606 N.Y.S.2d 127, 626 N.E.2d 912;  Williams v. LeChase, 15 A.D.3d 988, 989, 789 N.Y.S.2d 565, lv. dismissed in part and denied in part 5 N.Y.3d 730, 799 N.Y.S.2d 769, 832 N.E.2d 1185;  Silk v. Turk, 294 A.D.2d 896, 741 N.Y.S.2d 373;  Mejia v. Moriello, 286 A.D.2d 667, 668, 730 N.Y.S.2d 131).

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

MEMORANDUM: