Stejskal v. Simons 3 N.Y.3d 628, 782 N.Y.S.2d 397, 816 N.E.2d 186

3 N.Y.3d 628 • 782 N.Y.S.2d 397 • 816 N.E.2d 186

[816 NE2d 186, 782 NYS2d 397]

Ivo Stejskal et al., Appellants, v Albert Simons III et al., Respondents. (And a Third-Party Action.)

Decided June 24, 2004

*629APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

Profeta & Eisenstein, New York City (Fred R. Profeta, Jr., of counsel), for appellants.

DeCicco, Gibbons & McNamara, PC., New York City (Dennis A. Breen of counsel), for respondents.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs. The evidence unequivocally demonstrated that the sole purpose of the construction work was to convert what was a multiple dwelling into a one-family dwelling for the owners’ use. Thus, defendant owners were entitled to avail themselves of the one- or two-family homeowner’s exemption provided in Labor Law § 240 (1) and § 241 (see Khela v Neiger, 85 NY2d 333, 338 [1995]; Cannon v Putnam, 76 NY2d 644, 650 [1990]).

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges G.B. Smith, Ciparick, Rosenblatt, Graffeo, Read and R.S. Smith concur.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.4), order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.

Stejskal v. Simons
3 N.Y.3d 628 • 782 N.Y.S.2d 397 • 816 N.E.2d 186

Case Details

Name
Stejskal v. Simons
Decision Date
Jun 24, 2004
Citations

3 N.Y.3d 628

782 N.Y.S.2d 397

816 N.E.2d 186

Jurisdiction
New York
Court
New York Court of Appeals

References

Referencing

Nothing yet... Still searching!

Referenced By

Nothing yet... Still searching!