BROOKS v. HARRIS STRUCTURAL STEEL

Reset A A Font size: Print

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Michael BROOKS, Appellant, v. HARRIS STRUCTURAL STEEL, Respondent.

Decided: September 29, 1997

Before THOMPSON, J.P., and PIZZUTO, FRIEDMANN and KRAUSMAN, JJ. Sacks and Sacks, New York City (Scott N. Singer, of counsel), for appellant. Dowing & Mehrtens, P.C., New York City (Thomas E. Mehrtens, of counsel), for respondent.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Golar, J.), dated June 3, 1996, which granted the defendant's motion for partial summary judgment dismissing his cause of action pursuant to Labor Law § 241(6).

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the plaintiff's contention, the Supreme Court did not err in dismissing his claim that the defendant violated Labor Law § 241(6).   In the absence of any evidence that the defendant, which was responsible for manufacturing and delivering structural steel to the construction site, exercised any authority or control over the work site or the work giving rise to the plaintiff's injuries, the Supreme Court properly concluded that the defendant was not a statutory agent of either an owner or general contractor (see, Russin v. Picciano & Son, 54 N.Y.2d 311, 318, 445 N.Y.S.2d 127, 429 N.E.2d 805;  Barker v. Menard, 237 A.D.2d 839, 655 N.Y.S.2d 186;  D'Amico v. New York Racing Assn., 203 A.D.2d 509, 611 N.Y.S.2d 252).

MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.

Copied to clipboard