Opinion
November 7, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Ingrassia, J.).
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The defendant failed to establish that the plaintiffs supervised or controlled the manner and method of the work performed by him pursuant to the parties' construction contract. Thus, the Supreme Court correctly found that, as the owners of a one-family dwelling, the plaintiffs are exempt from the provisions of Labor Law §§ 240 and 241 and that they are not liable to the defendant for the alleged violations thereof (see, Cannon v. Putnam, 76 N.Y.2d 644; see also, Valentia v. Giusto, 182 A.D.2d 987, 989; Sotire v. Buchanan, 150 A.D.2d 971).
Additionally, the plaintiffs have established that they are not liable for the alleged violation of Labor Law § 200. An owner's duty to provide a safe workplace does not encompass protecting workers against defects or conditions that are readily apparent (see, McAdam v. Sadler, 170 A.D.2d 960). Here, the defendant testified at his pretrial deposition, that he was aware of the condition of the allegedly defective ladder prior to the date of the accident. Under these circumstances, the court properly granted summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs on the first and fourth counterclaims. Thompson, J.P., Rosenblatt, Miller and Ritter, JJ., concur.