Luthringer v. LuthringerLuthringer v. Luthringer
Memorandum: Plaintiff commenced this Labor Law and common-law negligence action seeking damages for injuries he sustained when he fell while replacing the roof on a single-family home owned by defendant, his brother. We agree with defendant that Supreme Court erred in denying his motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. With respect to the Labor Law cause of action, asserting the violation of
We further conclude in any event that defendant is also exempt from liability under
Likewise, we conclude that the court erred in denying that part of defendant‘s motion with respect to the common-law negligence cause of action. As we previously determined, defendant established that he neither supervised nor controlled plaintiff‘s work (see Comes v New York State Elec. & Gas Corp., 82 NY2d 876, 877 [1993]), and we further conclude that defendant established as a matter of law that he neither created nor had actual or constructive notice of the alleged dangerous condition (see Eddy v Tops Friendly Mkts., 91 AD2d 1203 [1983], affd 59 NY2d 692 [1983]). Plaintiff failed to raise an issue of fact to defeat that part of defendant‘s motion (see generally Zuckerman, 49 NY2d at 562). Finally, inasmuch as defendant argued before the motion court that he is entitled to summary judgment dismissing the common-law negligence cause of action, we reject plaintiff‘s contention that defendant has advanced that argument for the first time on appeal (cf. Ciesinski v Town of Aurora, 202 AD2d 984, 985 [1994]). Present—Hurlbutt, J.P., Martoche, Smith, Fahey and Peradotto, JJ.