Opinion
May 13, 1996
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lonschein, J.).
Ordered that the appeal from the order dated March 22, 1995, is dismissed, as that order was superseded by the order dated July 12, 1995, made upon renewal and reargument; and it is further,
Ordered that the order dated July 12, 1995 is affirmed insofar as reviewed; and it is further,
Ordered that the defendant Ogden Allied Abatement and Decontamination Service, Inc., and the third-party defendant Jarstan, Inc., are awarded one bill of costs.
The Supreme Court was correct in holding that New York's Labor Law did not apply to a construction site accident in Connecticut ( see, Padula v. Lilarn Props. Corp., 84 N.Y.2d 519; Huston v Hayden Bldg. Maintenance Corp., 205 A.D.2d 68).
Applying Connecticut law to the facts of this case, the Supreme Court was correct in dismissing the complaint. The plaintiff could not show that the defendants had actual or constructive notice of any condition on the premises which may have caused the plaintiff's accident ( see, Monahan v Montgomery, 153 Conn. 386, 216 A.2d 824; Fuller v. First Natl. Supermarkets, 38 Conn. App. 299, 661 A.2d 110). Furthermore, the plaintiff could not rely on a theory of res ipsa loquitur in this case, as he could not show that the object which allegedly caused his injury was within the defendants' control ( see, Malvicini v Stratford Motor Hotel, 206 Conn. 439, 538 A.2d 690; cf., Giles v City of New Haven, 228 Conn. 441, 636 A.2d 1335). Altman, J.P., Hart, Goldstein and McGinity, JJ., concur.