FERIS v. PORT AUTHORITY OF NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY (2007)

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Debra A. James, J.), entered December 15, 2005, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the brief, granted defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff's claims under New York Labor Law § 200 and for common-law negligence, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

 Plaintiff's New York Labor Law § 200 claim was properly dismissed since the relied-upon statute is inapplicable under the facts presented.  Labor Law § 200 is conduct-regulating, and New Jersey, where the accident occurred, has the greater interest in regulating behavior within its borders (see Padula v. Lilarn Props. Corp., 84 N.Y.2d 519, 522, 620 N.Y.S.2d 310, 644 N.E.2d 1001 [1994];  Florio v. Fisher Dev., 309 A.D.2d 694, 696, 765 N.Y.S.2d 879 [2003];  Webber v. Mut. Life Ins. Co. of N.Y., 287 A.D.2d 369, 370, 731 N.Y.S.2d 447 [2001] ).   Nor has plaintiff set forth a cognizable negligence claim under New York or New Jersey common law.   To the contrary, the evidence of record establishes that while defendants had general oversight of the work's timing and quality, they did not exercise the direct supervision and control over the manner of the work's performance necessary to establish liability at common law for negligence (see Scott v. American Museum of Natural History, 3 A.D.3d 442, 443, 771 N.Y.S.2d 499 [2004];  Gonzalez v. United Parcel Serv., 249 A.D.2d 210, 671 N.Y.S.2d 753 [1998];  see also Muhammad v. New Jersey Tr., 176 N.J. 185, 821 A.2d 1148 [2003] ).   In any event, plaintiff offers only unsupported speculation as to the cause of the accident (see Roman v. Vargas, 182 A.D.2d 543, 582 N.Y.S.2d 1020 [1992] ).