HANSEN v. TRUSTEES OF METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH OF GLEN COVE (2008)

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Murphy, J.), dated October 10, 2006, as granted that branch of the defendants' motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the cause of action alleging common-law negligence.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The defendants hired the plaintiff, inter alia, to repair portions of the roof of their church building and to replace the gutters and a rotted soffit.   While the plaintiff was removing a gutter, a portion of the soffit fell, allegedly injuring him.   He commenced this action, asserting claims under the Labor Law as well as a claim alleging common-law negligence.   On appeal, his only argument is that the Supreme Court erred in granting that branch of the defendants' motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the common-law negligence cause of action.   We affirm the order insofar as appealed from.

 Employers have a common-law duty to provide their employees with a safe place to work (see Gasper v. Ford Motor Co., 13 N.Y.2d 104, 110, 242 N.Y.S.2d 205, 192 N.E.2d 163).   The duty, however, does not extend to hazards that are part of, or inherent in, the very work the employee is to perform or defects the employee is hired to repair (id.;   see Kowalsky v. Conreco Co., 264 N.Y. 125, 129-130, 190 N.E. 206;  Wolfe v. Teele, 223 A.D.2d 854, 636 N.Y.S.2d 198;  Brugnano v. Merrill Lynch & Co., 216 A.D.2d 18, 19, 627 N.Y.S.2d 635;  Senkbeil v. Board of Educ. of City of N.Y., 23 A.D.2d 587, 589, 256 N.Y.S.2d 831, affd. 18 N.Y.2d 789, 275 N.Y.S.2d 273, 221 N.E.2d 813;  cf. Rosciano v. Royal Farms, 236 A.D.2d 599, 654 N.Y.S.2d 39). Here, the defendants established their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting evidence sufficient to demonstrate that the plaintiff's alleged injuries were caused by the rotted soffit that he was hired to remove and replace (see Gasper v. Ford Motor Co., 13 N.Y.2d at 110, 242 N.Y.S.2d 205, 192 N.E.2d 163;  Wolfe v. Teele, 223 A.D.2d 854, 636 N.Y.S.2d 198;   Senkbeil v. Board of Educ. of City of N.Y., 23 A.D.2d at 589, 256 N.Y.S.2d 831).   In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557, 562-563, 427 N.Y.S.2d 595, 404 N.E.2d 718).